tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN July 26, 2011 1:00pm-5:00pm EDT
purposes of going out on to the world market an not allowing for any reduction in the cost of gasoline in the united states of america. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the rule and the underlying legislation. and i'm at this time, mr. speaker, prepared to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida mr. hastings, yields back his time. the gentleman from florida, mr. webster, is recognized. . mr. webster: thank you, mr. speaker. this rule provides for an ample open debate, allowing our colleagues from across the aisle to offer legislative proposals to this bill. furthermore, the underlying bill addresses two critical concerns. if you listen to the speeches made in this chamber every day and every member of this house, unemployment and dependence on opec oil. as i have stated, 20,000 shovel-ready jobs can be created with the approval of this infrastructure project. approval of keystone x.l. pipeline will also serve to
increase oil imports from our friend and neighbor in the north, canada, while driving down the dependence on oil from countries which are frankly not -- they do not share our ideas about democracy and freedom. most importantly this bill does not force the president to approve this job-creating infrastructure project. it simply asks him and requires of him to make up his mind. after coordinating all of the appropriate stakeholders and coordinating with them. i ask my colleagues to join me today in voting in favor of this rule and passage of the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time and i move the previous question on resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida, mr. webster, yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from florida, mr.
hastings. mr. hastings: at this time i would ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 this question will be postponed. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house
things that have nothing to do with the debate right now. and at this point, you know, we've got about three options here. one is to wait, do nothing and go past august 2 and bring on possible default which i for one am not for, nor is the speaker or any of us zanding up here. another is to go with harry reid's plan which is, as the speaker said, a blank check. something that we as republicans don't believe that most americans think ought to happen. because that lets spending continue in this town the way it has and it helps promote the economic policies of the obama administration, that it frankly wrecked this economy. thirdly we have our option on the table. that is consistent with our commitment to saying we're going to change the system here, stop spending money we don't have and start focusing on getting people back to work in this country. doing something about the unemployment that is now still over 9%.
>> last night when you listened to the president, it was a political speech. you watched this leadership from republicans sit down hour after hour, trying to get to a bipartisan agreement. it's difficult to ever have any agreement with someone if you're buying a house, you're buying a car and you make an offer and no one ever counters, no one ever tells you what they want. so what happened is the president lost in the perspective because he couldn't produce a plan and couldn't make an agreement. as the founding fathers set down the house and the senate have to make a decision. that's what transpired over the weekend. from those talks we put together a bill. the bill that had provisions that the house republicans were looking for, a bill that had provisions that harry reid and mcconnell were looking for. this is what the american people have been asking for. this is the opportunity to move this country forward. we look forward to moving this bill off the floor of the house onto the senate and to the
president's desk. remember what the president did not say last night -- he did not say he'd veto it. >> the president's speech last night i believe was historic. i do not recall the last time a president of the united states used a nationally televised address not to tell the american people what he was for but to tell the american people what he was against. seven days out from his august 2 deadline there is still no plan to deal with the debt crisis from the president. what we heard from the president again was a call for balance, but there is a tale of two balanceless. the president's idea of balance is republicans, i want you to raise taxes on small businesses and american families to pay for my spending spree. house republicans' idea of
balance, mr. president, we will, we will raise the debt ceiling but only if you agree to cut up the credit cards. nothing has changed in this debate. i also found it quite interesting that the president would quote thomas jefferson, allude to ronald reagan, both of whom supported a balanced budget amendment to the constitution and the president of the united states last night was silent on the issue that could solve this problem once and for all. again, mr. president, we've heard it before, we know you want to get this done before the next election, but it's not about the next election, it's about the next generation. >> i'm excited that the house is going to be voting on the balanced budget amendment on thursday and will be the first time that we have voted on the balanced budget amendment since 1997. and in one of the polls that was
done last week, it showed 74% of americans support this amendment. and what was most impressive in the poll was that 2/3 of democrats support a balanced budget amendment. there is broad bipartisan support for moving forward on a balanced budget amendment and we're going to be taking action this week. when thomas jefferson, after they finished the constitution, he said, if i could make one change it would be to limit the federal government's ability to borrow money. over 200 years later i'm excited that we are going to make thomas jefferson's dream a reality. >> mr. mccarthy, could you talk a little bit about how you're talking the numbers, what you're saying -- [inaudible] there are a number of conservative members who preferred the original cut, cap and balance. they have problems with the plan -- [inaudible] >> we lay out the bill to them.
and we take from the cut, cap and balance the framework and tried to stay with it. when you look at the cap that is proposed, the biggest challenge about how government grows so quickly the last try year, discretionary grew at 84%. it's a strong cap. in this bill you have a vote for a balanced budget, a set time in the future. we're also going to have one this week. we will not give up that fight. we will continue that fight. we have current cuts going forward. yeah, it's not the bill the house republicans would write if we get to write one thing and one thing only. this is a bipartisan bill that we sat down with harry reid and harry reid made agreements to it. that is what the american people asked for, that is why we're moving forward. this moves us in the right direction. at the end of the day the government will spend less. is there will be caps on the
provision and there will be a vote to put it in once and for all a balanced budget. >> how do you -- [inaudible] >> there's a lot of big recipes out there that they don't like to share with you. we don't like to share ours either. >> [inaudible] . >> well, i think the package is discretionary cuts, it's real. next year's spending on the discretionary side will be lower than this year's spending. i think that is a big step in the right direction and we put real caps in place. i don't have the number at my fingertips, all i know is it's going to be less -- >> follow this briefing online at c-span.org. we're taking you back live. the house has gaveled back in for a series of votes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12 of rule 20, votes will be taken in the following order. adoption of h.res. 370 by the yeas and nays, motion to suspend the rules on h.r. 1383 by the yeas and nays, approval
of the journal by the yeas and nays. the first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute. remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes. the first vote is on adoption of h.res. 370. the clerk: house resolution 370, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 13938, to direct the president to exat the died the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on adoption of the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
vote the yeas are 246 and the nays are 171 and the resolution is adopted. a motion to reconsider is -- without objection is laid upon the table. vote vote -- the unfinished business is the vote on the motion by the gentleman from virginia. the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1383, an act to temporarily preserve higher rates for tuition and fees for programs of education and nonpublic institutions of higher learning pursued by individuals enrolled in the post-9/11 educational assistance program of the department of veterans affairs before the enhanced of the post-9/11 veterans educational assistance improvement act of 2011 and for other purposes. senate amendment. spoipt question is will the house suspend the rules and concur in the senate amendment. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote.
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 424 and the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the senate amendments are agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the unfinished business is the question on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the question is on agreeing to the speaker's approval of the journal. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of
pursuant to house resolution 209, this time has been designated for the taking of the official photo of the house of representatives in session. the house will be in a brief recess while the chamber is being prepared for the photo and the photographer indicates these preparations are complete, the chair will call the house to order to resume its actual session for the taking of the photograph. at that point the members will take their cues from the photographer. shortly after the photographer stays, the house will proceed with its business. so pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess while the
to the white house briefing with jay carney which just wrapped up. we'll show you as show you as much as we can until the house comes back in. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the white house. thanks for being here. it's time for your daily briefing. before i get started with questions, i think you all know by now that the president and the vice president visited the norwegian embassy in washington to offer their condolences to the people of norway after the tragedying killings that occurred last week. the president and vice president will sign a condolence book before returning to the white house. the first lady and dr. biden asked the president and vice president to deliver their own handwritten condolence letters
to the embassy. also i just want to mention, obviously we all watched this president last night, he spoke to the nation about the debate we're having in washington over the need to raise the debt ceiling, to make sure america honors its obligations and the need to reduce our deficits in a balanced way. he believes that the american people overwhelmingly, no matter their political affiliation, or whether or not they're even affiliated with a party, believe that washington should come together, that washington should compromise and that a balanced approach of deficit reduction is the right approach. he calls on americans to -- who feel that way to make their feelings known to congress and while there's nothing scientific about it, there's certainly evidence that many americans are doing just that. so we are -- we welcome that, obviously. and with that i will take your
questions. >> you can be as specific as you can about whether august 2 is in fact the drop-dead deadline or whether there is some wiggle room the government has to kay railroad this forward? >> ben, that's a good question. as you know the united states hit its debt limit in may and since may the treasury secretary, using authority that he has, and doing what previous secretaries of the treasury have been able to do, has exercised all the wiggle room available to him. and that runs out on august 2. that's not a guess, it's not a political opinion, it is the judgment of career analysts at the treasury department. beyond that date we lose our capacity to borrow. we give up our borrowing authority without action by congress. and the result of that risks default for the united states
for first time in our history. as we face the reality that we take in only 60 cents for every $1 we owe. and that's not a situation that we believe will happen and it is certainly a situation that should not happen. >> the president said last friday that he was already talking to secretary geithner in terms of to contemplate interest default. in a sense of prudence, is the government in fact already game planning what would happen if this default happens, communicating that to the leaders, to the states and to the american people? >> every president, every treasury secretary, republicans and democrats, have taken a hard look at this issue and reached the same conclusion. this goes to your question about august 2. that, you know, there are no more measures that can be taken.
of course the treasury is having discussions with o.m.b., with the fed to work through how we would manage this impossible situation, this impossible position. but it is important to state again that we do not believe we will get there. we think -- we take the leaders of congress at their word that they agree with the president, that it is unthinkable and unacceptable to the united states for the first time in its history to default on its obligations. and that action will be taken by congress to ensure that does not happen. time is running out so while we remain confident we are also -- we also understand some of the anxiety out there because we are pushing this to the last minute and that should not be the case but in the end we believe congress will act appropriately. >> there have been many times when a bill has been proposed and the white house has said that -- [inaudible] he will veto it even before it moves through congress.
if speaker boehner's bill, the republican bill made it to the desk, would the president veto it? >> as you know, the white house chief of staff addressed that explicitly on sunday. [inaudible] that position hasn't changed. it is however moot because as the president made clear last night, we're in a stalemate. the speaker's proposal cannot pass the senate, will not pass the senate, will not reach the president's desk and this is the problem we have is that we need congress to produce something that is a compromise and that therefore can get support from democrats and republicans in both houses and reach the president's desk and meet the president's approval. that's why we need compromise. and the president, you know, spoke in detail about why compromise is essential and why there is an admirable and long history of republicans and
democrats with strong disagreements and differences of opinion and ideological differences in the past coming together and finding compromise on tough issues. president reagan did it with democratic speaker, president clinton did it with republican speaker newt gingrich. this president did it with republican leaders in december. it can be done again and it must be. i would note that the speaker of the house in his address last night that followed the president's never mentioned the word compromise and yet that is the only alternative. we have a divided government, we have a two-party system, no party controls every branch of government. compromise is the only option. and we will hopefully get there. >> no chance of passing the senate? no chance? >> that's our -- we do not believe it will pass the senate. senator reid i believe said today on the floor that it will not pass the senate. he's the majority leader, has a pretty good feel for the place. we certainly strongly feel that
it is not a bipartisan compromise measure and that it is not -- it is in many ways a backdoorway to get cut, cap and balance or the ryan budget, things that they couldn't get through the front door, and make law because the american people don't support it, in through the back door. that's just not acceptable. now is the time to compromise. it's nor democrats to give, for republicans to give, to reach a solution that's not ideal for anyone except for the country. not ideal for a political party but the right thing for the country. the president has demonstrated his willingness to do that repeatedly, in public and in private. he's made clear he will make compromises. he made clear the kinds of decisions he would make that are tough and the kibleds of
decisions that he would endeavor to persuade democrats to accept. in order to reach a exro miles. because he believes it's the right thing to do. yes. >> some conservative republicans are expressing skepticism that even the boehner plan could pass the house. so if that's going to have difficulty, how could the reid plan pass the house and what is the path forward? >> i'm not my -- [inaudible] when i covered republicans on the hill i had a beter feel for what could or couldn't pass the house. i leave that up to others to judge. i think the plan put forward by the majority leader in the senate, senator reid, is a much better option. it represents compromise. others have pointed out that it doesn't include revenues in it explicitly except for tasking a committee to deal with the issues of health entime. reform and tax reform.
it has substantial considerable deep spending cuts. it addresses the absolute need to lift the cloud over our economy that the uncertainty about whether or not we will default has created. it is a legitimate compromise measure, we believe that it could pass the senate and the house if folks gave it a fair shake and we appreciate senator reid putting it forward. >> there are some lawmakers saying the calm in the market indicates that there isn't a crisis in the same way that the administration expected it. what is your answer to that? >> i would point to the abundance of experts, nonpolitical experts who have made clear that the prospect of the united states losing its borrowing authority and risking default is horrible to consider.
catsclissmick to our economy and the global economy. i could read to you from letters written by president reagan saying just that. by then treasury secretary jim baker saying just that. republicans of all kinds saying just that in the present day. it is simply wrong. and to risk that is to make a terrible mistake and to play chicken with our economy. the fact that there remains confidence in the world that washington will at the last hour get it back -- >> all of that online at c-span.org and our video library. we'll take you back live as the house is gaveling back in.
for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on the bill. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 370 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the consideration of h.r. 1938. the chair appoints the gentlelady from missouri, mrs. emerson, to preside over the committee of the whole. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for consideration of h.r. 1938, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to direct the president to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the keystone oil pipeline and
for other purposes. the chair: pursuant to the rule the, the bill is considered as read the first time. general debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on transportation and infrastructure, and 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on natural resources. the gentleman from kentucky, mr. whitfield, and the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, each will control 15 minutes. the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and the gentleman from west virginia, mr. rahall, each will control 10 minutes. the gentleman from washington, mr. hastings, and the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, each will control five minutes. the chair will recognize the gentleman from kentucky once the house -- will be in order.
the gentleman will suspend. the committee will be in order. will always member please take their conversations outside. the chair recognizes the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. whitfield: madam chairman, i rise today to support h.r. 1938, the north american made energy security act and give a lightning overdue green light to the keystone pipeline excel project. the keystone expansion project would allow up to $1.29 million
barrels a day to flow into the refineries in the midwest and gulf coast. a 700 barrel per day increase over existing capacity from canada. more oil means lower prices, and more imports from a stable ally like canada means less from unstable nations and potential adversaries. according to a study conducted by the department of energy -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend, please. the committee is not in order. the chair asks all members to take their conversations outside the committee. the gentleman may proceed. mr. whitfield: according to a study conducted for the department of energy, the keystone project has the
potential to significantly reduce oil imports from the middle east. the good news only gets better when one looks at the job impacts of the keystone project. construction of the expanded pipeline system alone would create an estimated 20,000 jobs. unfortunately, the obama administration continues to delay this project and there seems to be no end in sight. let's just look at the timeline to date. in september, 2008, transcanada, the developer of this project, first submitted its application for a presidential permit. the state department didn't release its draft environmental impact statement until april, 2010. after this first step, e.p.a. rejected the draft statement and told the state department they had to perform more work. after another year the state
department issued a supplemental draft statement that addressed e.p.a.'s concerns. even then e.p.a. seems to think that thousands and thousands of page of objective and honest analysis performed by various federal agencies is not enough. because of the endless delays, h.r. 1938 is a simple bill that calls on the obama administration to make a decision on this project by november 1, 2011. the administration has stated that they could have a decision by december 16, 2011, so we are only asking them to speed that up a few months. and we are not saying what the decision should be. at a time when the national average of a gallon of gas is $3.70 per gallon. and unemployment is still above 9%, the obama administration should be doing everything that
it can to approve projects expeditiously if they are creating jobs and reducing gasoline prices. h.r. 1938 is a bipartisan bill that cuts through the endless delays and creates a hard deadline for the administration to render a decision on keystone. it's time to get moving on reducing energy prices, reduce unemployment, and pass this bill. i urge all members to support this important bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i yield myself five minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. waxman: i rise in opposition to h.r. 1938. this legislation is unnecessary and it's harmful. it cuts short the state department's ongoing review of
the keystone excel tar sands crude pipeline. it would deny the public an adequate opportunity to comment on whether the pipeline should be built. and it benefits a specific foreign company, transcanada corporation, at the expense of the american people. there are really two distinct questions here. do you think the keystone pealline -- pipeline is a good idea and does it make sense? i happen to think the pipeline is a bad idea, feen you support the pipeline, you should oppose this bill. the keystone excel pipeline would carry a sludge made from canadian tar sands through the middle of america. in doing so, it would raise gas prices, endanger water supplies, and increase carbon emissions. and that's why it should not be approved. keystone excel is a highly controversial project.
the state department received over 200,000 comments on the supplemental draft environmental impact statement. once its built, we will live with the pipeline and its impacts for 50 years or more. this is a decision we need to get right. unfortunately this bill does not get it right. instead it says whatever the risks and costs, just get it done. h.r. 1938 takes the extraordinary step of interfering in an ongoing decisionmaking process by the secretary of state. the secretary's in the midst of determining whether granting the permit requested by transcanada would be in the national interest. the process for making these permit decisions was established by executive orders issued by president johnson and president george w. bush. the state department says it
plans to issue the final environmental impact statement in mid august, and that final decision by the end of the year. that's when the applicants say they need a decision. this bill overrides the executive orders and all other federal law. it short circuits the decisionmaking process. it requires the president to make a decision within 30 days of the final environmental impact statement. this effectively eliminates the opportunity for public comment on the national interest determination, and it cuts the time for consulting with other agencies by 2/3. that doesn't make sense. especially when you consider the potential risks. my greatest concern is that keystone excel will make us more reliant on the dirtiest source of fuel currently available. on a lifecycle basis, tar sands
emit far more carbon pollution than conventional oil. almost 40% more by some estimates. that's because it takes huge amounts of energy to take something the consistency of tar which they mine and turn it into synthetic oil. we should be reducing our oil dependence and using cleaner fuels, but keystone is a big step in the wrong direction. there are many other concerns, including safety. today is the one-year anniversary of the kalamazoo river oil pipeline spill, and 30 miles of the river are still closed. a few weeks ago there was a massive oil pipeline spill into the yellow stone -- yellowstone river, and transcanada, keystone's owner and operator, has had 12 spills on the first keystone pipeline in its first year of operation. keystone one was even shut down by the department of
transportation as, quote, hazardous to life, property, and the environment. end quote. the risks from smells are exacerbated with the keystone excel because it is rooted through the aquifer which spans eight states and provides drinking water for two million people. with all these risks, the benefits are unclear. a study commissioned by d.o.e. found that we will have excess pipeline capacity from canada for the next decade or more, even without keystone excel. and keystone will likely raise not lower gas prices. in its permit application, transcanada told the canadian government that by raising prices for crude oil in the midwest, keystone will increase revenue for canadian producers by $2 billion to $4 billion a year. but even if you believe we should build keystone's excel,
you should oppose this legislation. if you think the project has merit, let it be -- i yield myself another 30 seconds. yet it be approved on the merits not rushed to judgment without public comment. cutting the public out of the process and ramming this through will only increase opposition to this project. i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 1938. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. wlitfield: madam chair, i yield at this time 2 1/2 minutes to the chairman of the energy and commerce committee, mr. upton of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. mr. upton: thank you, madam speaker. today national unemployment rests at 9.2%. but it's even higher in my state of michigan at 10 1/2%. gasoline costs $3.80 a gallon or more in many areas, up a dollar from last year. political unrest halfway around the world disrupts the flow of oil to the markets, causing
prices to rise. most leaders in this situation would be searching for a project that would create jobs, help bring down gas prices, and, yes, provide a stable and secure source of oil to replace imports from dangerous parts of the world, our president is being handed such a project on a silver platter. and he's dangerously close to letting it slip through his fingers. . our northern canada ally has -- wants to send the oil here to the united states. five major labor unions have thrown their support around the pipeline because it will create more than 100,000 jobs, yet, this administration has allowed the permit application to languish for more than three years, even though they said they were inclined to support it almost a year ago in october. this pipeline, the keystone
x.l., if approved, would improve our energy security. according to d.o.d., they said we could eliminate our middle east support on oil. it would have an influx of oil in the market. threatened supplies in north africa sends the gas prices into orbit. the uncertainty has gone on too long and if we don't act these energy supplies will go someplace else. that's why we have this legislation, h.r. 1938. this bipartisan bill doesn't tell the president how to decide, it just requires them to make a decision. i commend my colleagues, lee terry -- lee, terry and ross for finding a bipartisan and commonsense solution. if we don't find this pipeline canada will find another buyer. the chinese have significant interest in alberta's oil
sands. are we going to stand by and watch our ally get the oil? i sure hope not. while i believe construction of this pipeline is necessary and important, i know it has to be done safely. last year 20,000 barrels of oil did spill through a creek that runs through my district and i made pipeline safety a priority in our committee and just this week we are going to be moving forward on an effective pipeline safety legislation to protect the environment and, yes, our communities. this legislation will ensure that crucial energy supplies, like the oil received from canada, is transported safely throughout the country. we need a yes bill on this -- yes vote on this bipartisan vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i yield to my fellow californian, a member of the energy and commerce committee, lois capps, two minutes. the chair: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for two minutes. mrs. capps: i thank my
colleague for yielding and, madam chair, i rise to speak against this hazardous piece of legislation. h.r. 1938 directs the president to allow canadian oil companies to build a dangerous pipeline through american lands and waters. and h.r. 1938 would expedite the pipeline's permitting process despite a long list of unaddressed concerns from numerous communities. the environmental impacts of this pipeline, which would extend over 1,600 miles through six states have not been thoroughly considered and we know that this project has the potential to significantly impact the environment. we've already seen what damage can be done. there have been 12 spills along trans-canada's keystone pipeline during the first six months of the operation. and the pipeline will deliver some of the most destructive oil on the planet. tar sands oil containing toxic chemicals like sulfur, nickel,
lead, and a barrel of tar sands oil emitts more than three times more gases than traditional oil. this would be the equivalent of adding more than 600,000 passenger vehicles in a highway or constructing through new coal-fired power plants. this major concern arises about the negative impacts of the pipeline on public health and the environment. at a time when we must find ways to end our dependence on fossil fuels, it is simply not in the national interest to deepen our reliance on one of the most dirtiest forms of oil on the planet. i believe the conducting the appropriate analysis underneath us which cannot be done properly if it's rushed will make this abundantly clear. we need to be moving forward by supporting clean renewable energy in this country. while the president is calling for a reduction on oil imports, this bill calls for an increase. for all these reasons, i urge
my colleagues to vote no against h.r. 1938. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. whitfield: madam chair, at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the author of the bill, mr. terry. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for two minutes. mr. terry: thank you, madam chair. this bill is simple but the ramifications may be significant. let me set the record straight. i want to get off opec oil. receiving as much as 700,000 barrels of oil from our northern neighbor, canada, makes us more energy secure, more energy independent. the application for this pipeline, an efficient way to move oil from one to the part, we are shy of three-year anniversary which normally it's 18 months, 24 months to have
something like this approved. now, this bill sets a hard date of november 1, 2011, for the president to make a determination of national interest on this pipeline. let me repeat. all we're asking is that the president make his decision by november 2. enough time has passed. now, what do we see if this project moves forward? it will be a $13 billion construction project privately funded. it will create at least 20,000 direct high-paying labor construction jobs. it will generate $6.5 billion in new personal income for u.s. workers and their families. it will spur more than $20 billion in new spending for the u.s. economy. it will stimulate more than $585 million in new state and local taxes. it will deliver $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated life span of this pipeline. now, we have heard from two
speakers already about the environmental impacts. i come from nebraska. i want to make sure that this pipeline is safe as it passes through an environmentally sensitive area called the sand hills and through the ogallala aquifer. there have been supplements. it has shown it can be done safely. this is the single most studied pipeline in the history of the united states. i believe it's in our national security from. it's about jobs, the economy and energy security. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i yield at this time two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague, the ranking member of the energy and commerce, for yielding me time. i rise in strong support of h.r. 1938.
i represent a district at the end of the -- this proposed pipeline in southeast texas. i have five refineries in our district and this will give them an alternative for crude oil to keep those refineries running. north american oil sands is a vital source of energy for the u.s. with skyrocketing fuel prices. i believe it's imperative that the u.s. diversify their energy sources. as the largest single importer, canada has helped reduce our dependence on energy supplies from unfriendly nations and this partnership should continued. trans-can da has agreed to comply with 57 additional special conditions developed by the pipeline and hazardous and safety materials administration for the keystone pipeline project. it's gone so far that the conditions will result in a project that has a larger degree of safety over any other
constructed domestic oil pipeline under the current code or law and safety along the entire length of the pipeline similar to whatever we have in high consequence areas. additionally, an independent study showed that the $7 billion keystone pipeline will directly create 20,000 highway, manufacturing, construction jobs in the u.s. so not only will this project help our energy security but it will help our recovering economy by creating thousands of jobs. i'm constantly hearing from my building trades in the houston area about their support for this pipeline and the bill and yet none of this matters very fairly and doesn't say what the administration's determination should be. instead it just says expedite the decision. it's been too long once the environmental review is complete. i appreciate the announcement that there is a decision maybe by december 31. maybe that wouldn't have been announced last week if we wouldn't have this bill moving in the house. i support the bill and encourage my colleagues'
support. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chair, at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. olson, for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. olson: i thank my chairman for yielding time and for his leadership on this important issue. madam speaker, i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1938, the north american-made energy security act. this bill is a bona fide jobs bill and will have a positive economic impact on our entire country. the keystone x.l. pipeline will stretch from our neighbor and ally, canada, through north dakota, -- through montana, north dakota, south dakota, kansas, oklahoma all the way down to my home state of texas.
ultimately transporting nearly three -- 1.3 million barrels of oil per day. 1.3 million barrels per day. and creating thousands of jobs on its journey to the gulf. the keystone pipeline has the potential to create up to 624,000 -- 624,000 jobs over the next 15 years, including 50,000 in the lone star state with an economic impact valued in the billions. 170 companies alone in texas would serve as suppliers. these are real jobs for real americans. this is real energy security for america. the department of energy has determined this pipeline could,
essentially eliminate, unquote, on middle eastern oil sources. the obama administration has dragged its feet for over two years, insisting on delaying the project for more environmental studies and regulatory hurdles. if we don't break through this regulatory wall, china is more than happy to take our place. the studies have been done, madam speaker. it's time to approve the permit. h.r. 1938 will ensure that the administration does just that. the keystone x.l. pipeline will strengthen america's economy, reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil and -- the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. whitfield: i yield the gentleman an additional one minute. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. olson: i thank the gentleman. in conclusion, the keystone x.l. pipeline will strengthen america's economy, reduce our dependence on middle eastern oil and produce hundreds of
thousands of jobs right here in america. it's a win-win-win. i urge my colleagues to support this very important energy security bill that will create jobs, jobs, jobs right here in america. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i'm pleased at this time to yield to the gentleman from virginia, mr. connolly, two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. connolly: thank you, madam chairman. this bill is a charade. it purports to increase oil production in america, yet, it would direct construction of a pipeline designed to export oil. there is already one keystone pipeline from the tar sands of alberta into america. that pipeline terminates in oklahoma. and supplies america with oil derived from tar sands. if the republicans wanted to bring a bill to the floor that would increase domestic access to this oil then it would support it. in fact, mr. markey and i introduced an amendment that would ensure that oil from the keystone pipeline would benefit
american consumers and it wasn't allowed on the floor. the republican leadership wouldn't even let this amendment come for debate. they claim that the pipeline will deliver oil to america but used a back door procedural trick. it was the only germane amendment which was blocked by the rules committee. why? because it gives lie to the real intent of this bill. oil for export, not for domestic consumption. our amendment didn't increase spending. all it would have done was to ensure that the keystone pipeline oil would flow to america rather than china, cuba or some other country. the fact that the republicans blocked this simple amendment shows that the bill before us today isn't about an energy security or gas prices but about oil company profits and exports. it isn't surprising that leadership would put big oil profits ahead of consumers. this is the same caucus that's driving our nation toward
default while they refuse to close tax loopholes for companies. this is the same caucus that gutted clean energy with three dozen riders in the interior and environmental act. and the same republicans who oppose using the strategic petroleum reserve to burst the speculative bubble in oil prices. they matched in lockstep with big oil companies since they took over the house majority and today they're attempting to pass legislation that would take gas from america and send it overseas. we are being given a false opposition to this legislation. i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from -- mr. connolly: i gladly yield. mr. waxman: we have heard comments on the floor and in committee on this bill that it's going to allow us to become less
dependent, maybe not even dependent on oil at all on saudi arabia. that we'll be able to be self-sufficient and have lower prices because of this pipeline. but the truth of the matter is that some economists believe that this oil pipeline will bring oil to texas and that oil either will be refined or shipped as crude oil to china. it doesn't help us to have any excess oil if it's going to be picked up and shipped to china. i think that we need to always have in mind that the united states of america uses 25% of the world's oil resources. and we have 2% of the source of those resources. the reserves here in the united states. we are always going to be dependent on imported oil unless we start moving away from oil
itself. i thank the gentleman for yielding to me. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chair, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from kentucky has four minutes remaining. the gentleman from california has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. whitfield: four minutes? the chair: yes, sir. mr. whitfield: at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, a member of the energy and commerce subcommittee, mr. scalise. the chair: the gentleman from louisiana is recognized for two minutes. mr. scalise: thank you, madam chair. i thank the gentleman from kentucky for yielding. i rise in support of this jobs bill, the keystone bill, that actually opens up another 700,000 barrels a day coming in to the united states from canada. first of all, this oil will be going to united states refineries in texas to refine oil for americans. and on top of that, it will create another 20,000 american jobs. if you look at what that means, that means first of all, china wants to get that oil from canada, if we don't agree to
this, if the president for whatever reason because radicals don't want that oil coming in. they don't like oil at all, so i guess they are going to ride on bicycles and that's going to get them where they need to be, we have to live in reality. we have a demand in this country for oil and it's either going to come from middle eastern countries, many of whom don't like it, or bring more oil in not only from america where the united states has more reserves they won't allow us to utilize, but here canada, saying, 700,000 barrels can come into america and create good jobs. what does that mean? it means we don't have to buy buy 700,000 barrels a day from middle eastern countries. the biggest part of our trade gap is all the money we send to these countries because we don't produce of our own in america because of these policies. you bring that 700,000 barrels a day from canada, that's $25 billion a year, $25 billion a year that we are not sending to middle eastern countries who don't like us. if you want to talk about a
trade gap, when we trade with canada, think about this, when we trade with canada, 90 cents on the dollar comes back to the united states of america. canada's a great ally, good friend of ours. it's a good trading relationship. we get 90% of that money back. when we trade with middle eastern countries, buying their oil, which we do right now, less than half of that money comes back to the united states. if you want to talk about this from dollars and cents, from jobs, from national security, all of that adds up to passing this bill to build this relationship, build this pipeline with canada who says they want to partner with us. if we turn them down, they'll go to china, but they want this relationship. they want to increase our energy security, create those jobs. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, i was a bit confused when you said how much time was on each side. the chair: the gentleman from california has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from kentucky has
two minutes remaining. mr. waxman: i'm pleased at this time to yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. let's connect the dots here. the colt brothers who financed the election of 2010 won. they won bigtime. they own a facility up in canada that will be the place where the tar sand oil will be converted into are form that can then be shipped to the gulf coast by this pipeline. now, all that money that they put in, millions and millions and millions of dollars into the last election is coming back as
a return on the investment. and it's a big return, ladies and gentlemen. this pipeline is going to cost $13 billion, $13 billion. who is paying for it? the colt brothers? no. the american people are on the hook for the $13 billion to build this pipeline for the colt brothers and for their cohorts -- exxon, mobile, shell, b.p., and all of the rest of the big boys, whose tax credits and tax breaks, they are protecting without hesitation. so they are giving it bothways,
ladies and gentlemen. they are getting it on the front end and they are getting it on the back end in terms of not having to pay any taxes. i think it's a -- i think we need to look at -- during this debt ceiling debate what our priorities are as a nation and what our values are. are we simply there to do the bidding of big business? and the oil companies? or are we here to do the business for the american people? the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: i yield back. i rest my case. the chair: the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: madam chair, it's my understanding i have a couple minutes left. at this time i'd like to yield one minute to the gentleman from colorado. the chair: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for one minute. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. thank you, madam speaker. today i rise to speak on the importance of the keystone x.l. pipeline, her 1938. one of my goals here in congress has been to help advance projects like this, projects that will help advance domestic sources of energy.
mr. gardner: i'm potentially add odd at how many potential we have at home and how it would be simple to advance policies that would make us energy independent. i'm continuously baffled how difficult this administration has made it to wean ourself off middle eastern oil, to create more jobs at home. this bill alone, in committee i learned that it will create 6,000 new jobs in colorado. over the next four years. good-paying construction jobs, for example. i'm appalled at the regulatory burdens are almost worse sometimes the inaction on the part of our administration that has led us down the path of insecurity and dependence on many countries that have animosity towards us. not only do we have the resources in our own backyard, but we have the ability to utilize friendly and willing unfinished business like canada to import oil into the united states. h.r. 1938, the north american made energy security act will direct the president to make a decision on the permit and move
us in the direction of energy security. american jobs, american made. i encourage the passage of this bill. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. waxman: madam chair, members of this house, climate change is real. we are experiencing its effects. according to "the washington post" almost 2,000 high temperature records have been broken in towns and cities across america since the start of the month. another 4,300 records have been set for high overnight temperatures. i don't think that we should short circuit consideration of a pipeline that increases our consumption of tar sands crude up to 40% higher carbon pollution. that is not in our national interest. even the national farmers union is urging opposition to this legislation. they say that n.f.u. continues to have serious concern regarding the keystone x.l.
pipeline as currently proposed. and we believe all necessary time should be given for public review and analysis of the options for the proposed project. congress should not fix a hard deadline for this process to be completed. i urge a no vote on this legislation. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from kentucky. mr. whitfield: i would remind everyone that in america today we are using about 22 million barrels of oil a day. we are
million barrels of oil a day. in this country. we need more efficiency. there is no question about that. to make -- get better gas mileage. but we also have to recognize that we have a responsibility to bring more product into the united states. to do so from canada would be good for the american people. it would create, it's been said, 20,000 construction jobs at a time when unemployment is 9.2%. and we also understand that if that pipe lin does not come to america, it's going to go to west canada and that oil will be going to china. we have to remain competitive in the global marketplace if we are going to create jobs in america. that's what this pipeline is about. and i would remind everyone that we are not short-circuiting any studies. comprehensive studies have been made. environmental impact statements have been examined, and i would urge everyone to support this important legislation and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to claim my time in support of the bill. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.
>> i thank the gentlelady. i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. shuster: i rise in support of h.r. 1938, the north american native energy security act. as a member of the transportation and infrastructure committee, chairman of the subcommittee on hazardous materials and pipelines, i appreciate the hard work my colleague from nebraska, mr. terry, and the energy and commeers committee, his colleagues, have done to bring this bill forward. in which we share jurisdiction. this important legislation directs the president to expedite the consideration and approval of the construction and operation of the keystone x.l. oil pipeline. this important project has been delayed for far too long. as my colleague from nebraska pointed out, it's one month away from its three-year anniversary from its introduction. the time has come for the president to finally move forward and make a decision. this legislation requires, doesn't force the president, to make a yes or no decision, but
it does require the president to issue a final order granting or denying the presidential permit for the keystone x.l. pipeline no later than november 1, 2011. this $7 billion, 1,6700 mile pipeline would link canada's tar sands region with refineries in the midwest and texas. the economic impacts of the keystone x.l. pipeline are immense. estimates of 465,000 u.s. jobs by the year 2035. all of my colleagues talk on the house floor about taking action to limit our dependence on oil from unstable areas of the world and foreign governments hostile to u.s. interest. this is a project that will move us in that direction. accomplishing that goal will also grow our economy by partnering with our close friend and ally, canada. the united states has the largest network of energy pipelines of any nation in the world. and the pipelines remain the
energy lifelines that power nearly all of our daily activities. the hallmark of america's pipeline network continues to be it delivers extraordinary volumes of product reliably, safely, efishently, and economically. -- efficiently, and economically. since 1986 the volume of energy products transported through pipelines has increased by 1/3, yet the number of reportable incidents has increased by 28%. both government and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline safety over the last 10 years. safety advocates, environmentalists in the pipeline industry agree the federal pipeline safety program is working. later this sum the transportation and infrastructure committee will bring a bill to the floor to re-authorize the federal pipeline safety program. we will work with our colleagues from the energy and commerce committee as we bring our bill to the floor to ensure that safety remains our top priority. that piece of legislation will ensure the pipelines like the keystone x.l. pipeline will continue to be the safest and most efficient way to move
petroleum products and natural gas. but i'm also concerned by what appears to be advised by some in this body to nontraditional sources of energy. to end our alliance from oil from overseas we must develop the resources we have available in north america, that includes the oil sands in canada and marcela shale and natural gas in my home state of pennsylvania. we must ensure the development of these resources is done responsibly and in an environmentally safe manner, but we cannot hold them back and show a prejudice just because they are unconventional. . we can't have it both ways. we can't not develop our resources in the back yard. i look forward to continuing work on this important issue. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: madam chair, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is
recognized. mr. rahall: madam chair, as someone who has the privilege of representing an american-made energy-producing state, i understand the economic benefits of producing energy here at home, and i believe my record on this subject and this body is well-documented. i want to begin, of course, by complimenting the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, for his leadership on this legislation as well as chairman mica, the chair of the transportation and infrastructure. and representative corrine brown. i want to talk about the process or the lack thereof that was taken to bring this legislation to the house floor for legislation today. the committee on transportation and infrastructure has primary jurisdiction over pipeline construction and safety legislation. following this long-standing precedent on october 23, instead of considering the legislation under regular order as the committee has always
done in the past, chairman mica chose to discharge the committee from consideration of the bill. now, i serned the committee on t&i, i can't think of this committee acting as primary jurisdiction has discharged its consideration of major legislation in this matter. not one single instance. the fact is that in the aftermath of several devastating pipeline incidents, there are some legitimate concerns about the potential safety and environmental and health impacts of transporting heavy crude oil by pipeline. i would have liked to explore those concerns in an open and transparent matter had the committee considered this legislation. with that said i am optimistic that this is an issue that we can delve into further as we work with chairman mica to draft -- craft a bill that re-authorizes the nation's pipeline safety program. in the interim, i believe we need to move forward with the decision on a presidential permit for construction of the
keystone pipeline. current plans over construction activities that began in the first quarter of 2012 and commercial operation to commence in 2013. the fact is that this pipeline will create thousands of new jobs at a time when unemployment in the construction sector is double the national average. construction was hard hit by the recession. with the construction industry having lost nearly two million jobs since december, 2007, we need to put these people back to work. unfortunately, as of last week, the house republican leadership piled on the already devastated construction industry and shut down major parts of the federal aviation administration which will jeopardize $2.5 billion in construction projects, 87,000 jobs, furlough aviation and other career professionals in 35 states and cost $200 million per week in lost revenue. if the chairman can discharge consideration of this bill and
fast track it to the house floor for a vote i hope he will do same with the legislation that representative costello and i introduce earlier this week to get aviation experiod of times and construction crews back on the clock. while pink slips have already gone out to construction companies from coast to coast yesterday, republicans seem to have reversed gears announcing to support construction jobs, union jobs in fact. i congratulate them on the latter. on september, 2010, trans-canada said they enter understood a project labor agreement for the construction of the keystone pipeline. labor unions of north america, the united states association of journeymen and apprentices of the pipe fitting industry of the united states and canada, the international union of operating engineers and the pipeline contractors association will provide trans-canada with a capable,
well-trained and ready work force in the u.s. to construct the pipeline. during construction, the project is expected to create over 13,000 highway union jobs for american workers. despite the procedural concerns i raised, i ask my colleagues to support this legislation, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> may i inquire as to how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from pennsylvania has 6 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from west virginia has six minutes remaining. >> at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from georgia, mr. brown. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute. mr. broun: i rise in support of h.r. 1938. i thank my friend, lee terry from nebraska, for taking the lead on this issue. the keystone x.l. pipeline is vital to ensure that the united states is able to meet its demand for oil. canada is already the single largest source of oil imports for the united states. this pipeline is expected to
bring between $-- 830,000 to more than one million barrels of crude to american refineries each and every day, helping to reduce our dependence of imported oil from unfriendly nations. at a time when unemployment is hovering nearly 10%, this is supposed to add nearly 13,000 new american jobs. it maximizes our domestic sources of oil, we will have to rely upon imports. canada is among our strongest allies and a stable democracy. canada serves as an example of how we should be exploring and developing our own domestic resources. again, i thank my friend from nebraska for working so diligently on this issue. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1938. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: madam chair, i yield three minutes to the
distinguished lady from florida, the ranking member, corrine brown. the chair: the gentlewoman from florida is recognized for three minutes. ms. brown: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank the ranking member, mr. rahall, for his leadership. you know, i am very upset that for the first time after 21 extensions that the f.a.a. was shut down friday night. jeopardizing $2.5 billion in construction projects, 87,000 american construction jobs and furloughing at least 3,6,000 f.a.a. aviation -- 3,600 f.a.a. aviation engineers. this is a sad time for the committee on transportation. we have always worked together in a bipartisan way to make sure that we move america and keep people working. this is america, and i want to say i fully believe that it's possible to build the keystone pipeline in a way that improves our access to crude oil and put
thousands of people to work while protecting citizens from hazardous spills. but we have to hold the industry's feet to the fire and make sure they take every possible precaution to build this pipeline. the pipeline and hazardous safety materials administration must ensure full oversight in every step of the way in developing this pipeline and must ensure that it is completed safely. i want to ask chairman mica and the ranking member to ensure that the committee fulfills its oversight role by readily re-- regularly reviewing the construction of the pipeline to ensure that it is capable of transporting these damaging products. i want to take this time to express my disappointment that transportation and infrastructure committee waived its jurisdiction over the keystone pipeline legislation that was developed by the energy and commerce committee. the committee on transportation and infrastructure is the committee of primary jurisdiction over pipeline and
construction and safety legislation and is the primary committee to refer for the keystone legislation. just last week our subcommittee held a hearing on the spill in montana and we're continuing to monitor the progress in cleaning up this spill and compensation to those who were harmed. the legislation we are debating today was strongly vetted by our committee. i urge our committee to hold hearings and markup on any legislation would be in our jurisdiction. our pipeline subcommittee held at least five hearings last session concerning pipeline safety and found significant problems with reporting and inspection as well as unhealthy relationship between the pipeline industry and the agency regulating them. moreover, much like the sewer and water infrastructure in this country, much of the pipeline infrastructure is reaching the end of its useful life, and we need to make significant investments in
improving the access. we mississippi deliver petroleum -- we must deliver petroleum to the states. we need to develop new technology and strategies for improving safety in highly populated areas, and now located above the pipelines. with the high unemployment rate this country is currently facing, we should be hiring and training inspectors -- may i have an additional minute, mr. ranking member? mr. rahall: i yield one minute. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. brown: we should be putting construction workers to replace this ancient pipeline structure in the u.s. let me rush to say that the republican plan in their deficit reduction plan protecting the big oil and the oil companies that made over $1 trillion in the last 10 years.
$310 billion by exxon. $352 billion by chevron. $302 billion by b.p. they made $1 trillion but yet we are trying to take senior citizens' retirement and social security. you know, you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. and i want to submit their profit record to the record. thank you. the chair: covered under general leave. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. shuster: at this time i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. brady. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. brady: thank you, madam speaker. i thank chairman shuster for his time. i might point out that our energy companies are making profits, major profits overseas. because that's where this white house has chased our jobs and our energy production. today, we're saying yes to
north american-made energy. the keystone pipeline will increase our access to safe and secure energy supplies from our neighbors in the north. not from the middle east. not to unstable parts of the world. when completed the pipeline will have billions of barrels of oil to the midwest, our gulf coast refineries and have good-paying jobs with them. prices at the pump are high. we've seen the effects of delay of american-made energy. if you haven't seen that, ask our gulf coast workers who lost their jobs and have been hurt because the permittorium. we have american-made energy solution from a strong trading partner and ally and a solution that supports good old american energy jobs. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from west virginia. mr. rahall: i'm prepared to close.
mr. shuster: we have one more speaker. the chair: would the gentleman from west virginia like to reserve? mr. rahall: i yield my time. mr. shuster: i yield to the chairman of the transportation and infrastructure committee, mr. mica. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mica: madam speaker and my colleagues, i rise in strong support of the proposal by the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry. we should all be thanking mr. terry for this initiative. not only are people in this country hit by incredible unemployment economic challenges, a dysfunctional congress, but as they go to the local service station to fill up with gasoline, they're paying record prices. i woke up this morning and i heard one of the commentators said -- was interviewing an expert on, again, energy and he
predicted that one year from now we'll be paying between $4.50 and $5.50 for a gallon of gasoline. now, you had the ranking member for me fast tracking this legislation. i guess i beat a record of not -- i'm telling you, i will waive this and anything else we need to do to get this country in energy -- get this country energy independent and find a way for the average citizen to be able to afford energy. we need a short-term plan, and that's bringing energy into the united states without being held hostage to people like the regimes in the middle east or venezuela. this pipeline will bring in 1.3 million barrels of oil per day. that equals -- that exceeds what comes in from venezuela. it exceeds what comes in from
saudi arabia. how frustrated the people of america must be. then, of course, i was attacked on f.a.a., lack of re-authorization. how could they attack me? four years they controlled this place and incredible numbers, huge numbers to do anything in the house, huge numbers to do anything in the senate. four years. i offered the last f.a.a. authorization in 2003 and 2007 and they sat on it and never did anything. they did 17 extensions, they forced us to do three. and i'm telling you, i've had it. if they have done this before in a different way it's not going to be done that way anymore. we sent them last wednesday an extension and it was a kleenex tension. it had -- it was a clean extension. it had one provision that they passed unanimously and they don't like part that have one
provision that stops funding of essential air service subsidies, federal taxpayer subsidies in excess of $1,000. so for three airports getting -- their passengers are being paid a subsidy of $1,500 to $3,700, three airports that are closing down the f.a.a., they've had since last wednesday and they sat on it. so i don't care how we've done things before, we're going to do things differently. i'll be in charge of the committee at least through next year and i'm going to find a way to do things. we're going to get reasonable energy to the american people and a year from now mark your calendar. we didn't mandate that they build the pipeline and i want the pipeline built with every safety consideration. yes, the obama administration shouldn't be asleep at the track
like they were with the gulf oil spill, when they issued the permit, stamped it in just a few days. you know, they issued more permits for deepwater drilling in their short-term -- short term in office and then closed down the rest of the access to energy across the united states and actually issued more deepwater permits in their first few months in office than the entire bush administration and then were asleep at the switch when they have -- when she should have been inspecting that procedure and they -- when they should have been inspecting that procedure and they should have been inspecting it. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from west virginia. the gentleman from west virginia has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from pennsylvania has 1/2 minute remaining. mr. rahall: thank you, madam chair. i thank the ranking member's remarks and his anger, it is indeed frustrating. i again invite him to fast track without consideration of process
as he has done on this pipeline bill in order to free us from reliance upon foreign sources of energy. i hope he just as quickly fast tracks our kleenex tension of the f.a.a. bill we introduced today -- clean extension of the f.a.a. bill we introduced today. people that are already sitting at home for the second, going on the third day without jobs. i would also, madam chairman, ask that a letter i sent to chairman mica back on june 30 in regard to our committee on t yanled i, waiving jurisdiction on the pending legislation be made part of the record at the proper time. and also a letter from four major labor unions endorsing the pending legislation, the brotherhood of teamsters, the labors international union, the international union of operating engineers and united association of jern journeyman of the united states and canada, a let they are sent to -- the chair: that will be covered under general leave. mr. rahall: and as i noted
during my -- during my previous remarks, these are good paying jobs, they're union jobs, project labor agreement has been entered into that will ensure the protection of these union workers and their families and so i would urge my colleagues to support the pending legislation. at the same time that i would urge again my ranking -- my chairman to expedite consideration of a clean f.a.a. re-authorization bill that has been introduced today by representative costello and myself and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> thank you and i heard correctly the gentleman's going to support the underlying legislation? mr. rahall: yes. >> that's got to hear -- good to hear. mr. rahall: i made that clear in both of my speeches. >> i thought so but i just wasn't paying attention to the intro. it's great to hear and it's important -- mr. rahall: you weren't listening? >> it's important we pass this on a bipartisan basis. mr. shuster: because it does mean jobs for americans. construction jobs somewhere up
to 20,000, it means steel that is going to be made in u.s. steel plants so this is a big that -- bill that is not only going to create jobs, it's going to help us break that dependence on foreign oil and again i tip my hat to mr. terry from nebraska for putting forth h.r. 1935 and i urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this proenergy, projobs bill and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i claim time for the committee on natural resources. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lamborn: thank you, madam
chairman. i yield myself as much time as i may consume before i yield to a couple of my colleagues. this legislation takes a crucial step toward giving our nation's energy security and putting americans back to work. in 2010 alone the united states imported over one trillion barrels of oil from opec countries. many of which have unstable or unfriendly governments. while my preference would be that we replace that oil with domestically produced resources from the rockies or the outer continental shelf in alaska, we have the next best thing by having canada as a stable, friendsly energy-rich trading partner sharing our northern border. as we have seen in so many other aspects of our nation's energy portfolio, whether it be offshore production, onshore production or even renewable energy production on federal lands, the obama administration is once again slow walking or even stonewalling domestic energy security and job creation with needless delays and
bureaucratic red tape. this legislation will help ensure a steady supply of crude oil from one of our strongest allies. it has the potential to create 20,000 direct construction jobs for americans and spur $20 billion in new spending in the u.s. economy. the ex tens -- the extension of this pipeline will create new money in state and local taxes during construction. it will greatly lessen our dependence on oil from opec. opponents of this pipeline seem to believe that if we don't use this oil here it won't be produced. that position is fundamentally wrong and displace a foolish and naive -- displays a foolish and naive disregard for the flow of international oil production. the reality is if america won't take this oil, china will. instead of having a secure pipeline feeding the american heartland, we will see massive tankers off the coast of washington and oregon as china fills its ships for export and
china doesn't have the environmental safeguards that we do. we should pass h.r. 1938. at this moment, madam chairman, i would like to yield one minute to my colleague from the state of ohio, mr. johnson. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: i thank the gentleman for yielding and, madam speaker, today i rise in strong support of h.r. 1938, the north american-made energy security act. for far too long the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline has been caught up in bureaucratic red tape that unfortunately has become the norm with this administration. this legislation simply forces the administration to make a decision by november 1 of this year which would be more than three years after the application was originally submitted. this bill addresses our nation's independence on opec for oil -- or i'm sorry, addresses our nation's dependence on opec for oil but also creates american jobs. the pipeline extension would allow for an additional 700,000
barrels of oil per day to be brought to the u.s. marketplace. this increase in oil from america's largest trading partner would begin to make america less beholden to unstable opec countries for our oil demands. furthermore this pipeline isn't -- if this pipeline isn't built this oil will go to china instead of coming to america. this legislation would also pave the way for the creation of 13,000 direct jobs and tens of thousands of indirect jobs should the project be approved. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. mr. lamborn: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts . >> yes, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i rise in strong opposition to
h.r. 1938. we are here debating whether to expedite the approval of a pipeline that will import the dirtiest crude oil on the planet into the united states of america. mr. markey: by melting the oil out of the tar in canada which creates more greenhouse gases than any other production method for crude oil on the planet. it also destroys the boreal forest. it contaminates millions of gallons of water each day. that is a very high environmental price to pay for oil from tar in canada that may not lower prices for americans and may never be sold to
americans. but we will build the pipeline for them through our land to accomplish this goal. the majority has repeatedly claimed that expediting the approval of this pipeline will lower gas prices at the pump for the american public. but what factual evidence should we rely upon in order to substanceate this claim? well, we can't rely upon transcanada, the very company that wants to build the pipeline through our country, because it has concluded that after the pipeline is constructed that gas prices would rise in the midwest of our country as a result of the keystone x.l. pipeline. we are also told that building this pipeline will enable us to reduce our dependence on imported oil from countries who don't like us very much.
instead we will be able to rely upon dependable canada, our friends the canadians. but what are the guarantees that building this pipeline will actually lead to greater supplies of crude oil for the american people? well, the answer, madam speaker, is that there are no guarantees. there is nothing in this bill, nothing that prevents keystone x.l. pipeline oil from being shipped to the gulf coast, refined there from the tar of alberta, canada, and then rere-exported and sold into the global -- re-exported and sold into the global market. i offered an amendment to the rules committee that would have required the department of energy to ensure that the approval of this pipeline would in fact guarantee that the benefits of the keystone oil being transported through our country stay right here in our
country. my amendment would have required the keystone oil be sold in this country. that wine crease the gasoline and the -- that would increase the gasoline and the diesel supplies at the pump and help to ensure lower prices at the pump. and my amendment swroo benefited domestic businesses that use -- would have benefited domestic businesses that use those products, by ensuring a study -- steady supply of petroleum products for their manufacturing plants here, made in america. my amendment was consistent with longstanding u.s. policy on oil exports. well, ladies and gentlemen, the republicans refused to allow a vote on my amendment here today. they won't even allow our members to vote on keeping the oil that is going to be transmitted in a pipeline that we're going to allow to be blilt through our country here -- built through our country here. so, yes, it's the dirtiest oil in the world.
but at least if you're going to build a pipeline, at least have it be sold here in america and not sold to china, not sold to korea, at least have that guarantee. they refuse to even have a vote on it, ladies and gentlemen. that's what this is all about. once again, it's all about this ideological belief that the largest oil company know best. we should not be taxing them, we should not be putting any burden on the biggest oil companies, better to push the american economy to the brink of fiscal collapse than the republicans would ever consider allowing to rescind tax breaks for the biggest oil companies. they wouldn't even begin to think about putting that on the table. grandma's social security check, absolutely. building a pipeline through our country with the dirtiest oil in the world to be sold to asia, absolutely, no problem for the republicans.
so this bill, despite the overwhelming factual evidence that building the pipeline will only result in dirtier air, more profits to big oil, without benefits to the american consumer, they are going to continue to push forward. vote no on this environmental atrocity. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i'd like to inquire of the chairwoman how much time is remaining for each side. the chair: the gentleman from colorado has two minutes remaining. the gentleman from massachusetts has no time remaining. mr. lamborn: i'd like to yield one minute to my good colleague and friend from the state of texas. >> i rise today in strong support of h.r. 1938, the north american-made energy security act. this bipartisan legislation would increase access to more energy supplies by expediting the presidential permit to the keystone x.l. pipeline extension. mr. flores: we are all air wear that every additional barrel that can be produced in north
america is one fewer barrel that we need from the middle east. this pipeline extension would help bring up total capacity up to more than 1.2 million barrels per day into our markets. also, as we look for opportunities to address our struggling economic recovery, this project will create an estimated 100,000 american jobs and help grow our economy. canada's vast oil resources have also attracted interest from other energy-hungry nations. if we do not tap this valuable resource, the chinese or other countries will. the obama administration has already delayed the decision on this project for almost three years, and it is time that they may act and make a decision. the choice is clear. by passing this bill we will increase our energy security with a more stable supply of efficient and affordable international trading partner and we will lessen our dependence on middle eastern oil. i ask my colleagues to support this critical legislation. i yield back.
the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: the north american-made energy security act is a pivotal first step towards securing our energy future, lessening our dependence on oil from opec countries and putting americans back to work. canada and the u.s. have the world's largest two-way relationship. rather than put up roadblocks we should foster and build upon that relationship to utilize each other's resources. if we don't use this oil, chinese consumers will, and we will continue to rely on oil from opec. we cannot stand idly by as the obama administration continues to delay and put up roadblocks that prevent the production of american energy and the creation of american jobs. h.r. 1938 will force the amferings to make a decision that has been unnecessarily trade for years. the legislation is good for the american economy and good for american jobs, and i urge my colleagues to support this legislation. thank you, madam chairman. i yield back the balance of my
time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time for general debate has expired. pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on energy and commerce printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered as read. no amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed in house report 112-181. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report by a member designated in the report , shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question. it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentleman from vermont rise?
mr. welch: madam speaker, i rise today to offer an amendment to h.r. 1938. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. welch of vermont. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentleman from vermont, mr. welch, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. welch: madam speaker, this amendment inserts an environmental finding that highlights the significant, the very significant environmental and health risk that are proposed by -- that will incur by this proposed pipeline. this pipeline is going to carry up to 900,000 barrels of tar sands oil every day. it's going to carry them a distance of 2,000 miles, and whatever assurances are given
about the safety of any mechanical and engineering system, we have too much regular experience that the best of intentions oftentimes fail. so there is risk, and we want that to be known as part of the findings. a university of nebraska professor recently released a first independent assessment of the spills that could come from the keystone x.l. pipeline. that study found that trans-canada has in fact greatly understated the risk of the pipeline. that study established that the pipeline could spill over five million gallons of tar sands oil into a river, making water undrinkable for hundreds of thousands. also the keystone real-time leak detection system doesn't detect spills that are less than 700 gallons per day. the administrator of the pipeline hazardous materials
safety administration said that it was not designed for tar sands oil in mind. the environmental permitting process for a project that has questionable benefits to our station, let's at least recognize the risk. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman from nebraska rise in opposition? mr. terry: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for up to five minutes. mr. terry: thank you, madam chair. i urge rejection of this. gutting amendmenting, what this would do is basically say you can't build any pipelines in this general area. i'd like the gentleman from vermont to know that there's many pipelines already running through this area. oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, and also the other point i'd like to make to --
regarding this amendment, this almost two feet high of materials is the draft environmental study, the supplemental environmental study, phmsa's report. i can assure the gentleman that there is no other pipeline that has been studied to the point that this one has. it is as close to the best built pipeline as demanded by the agencies that have oversight. so it has gone through a very thorough, thorough examination. the owners of this pipeline, trans-canada, have already agreed to not only increasing the thickness of the pipeline itself but additional pump stations where that's where
they're able to detect there's a leak, the pipeline reform bill will be reported out of committees later and they would have to adhere to all of those rules including something that we're discussing that all leaks would have to be able to be on site repaired within one hour. there's no way to design a perfect pipeline, but there is ways to make sure that if there is there's a rapid response, and that has been built in. those are additional agreements. so i'm vastly positive that, a, any leaks that would occur are going to be minimal and not hazardous to the ogallala aquifer, and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from vermont. mr. welch: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. welch: i yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from tennessee.
the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for no more than three minutes. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the welch-cohen amendment. this noncontroversial amendment states an important fact that was not mentioned in the findings section. i'm -- the critical fact keystone x.l. will run through the world's largest fresh water aquifer, the ogallala aquifer, which provides drinking water for millions of americans. this essential part of the pipeline that must be considered by the state department and the american public before granting a determination of national interest. our amendment also states the results of the only independent assessment of the worst-case spills for the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline, a report that indicates the trans-canada has greatly understated the pipeline's risks. perhaps the most important component of the report is the
discovery that even a small undetected leak of an underground representure of the pipeline in the nebraska sand hills can produce almost 5 billion gallons of groundwater, a risk for anyone using this aquifer, for drinking water or for anyone using for other purposes. and given the keystone's real-time leak detection does not register spills less than, get this, 700,000 gallons a day. they'll have no knowledge of it. what is eenl even more disconcerting is that according to cynthia quarterman, the administrator of the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration, the safety regulations were not written to address the unique piping tar sands, the worst flow one could imagine. additionally, administrator quarterman noted that her agency, the government's pipeline safety experts have not been included in the review of key tony x.l. and has not -- keystone x.l.
as we consider building a dangerous tar sands pipeline through our nation's most important aquifer it is important that we have an accurate depiction of the risk. that is why the sierra league and others are so interested as is the american public in these findings. i urge support for the welch-cohen amendment, and yield back the -- the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from vermont reserve? mr. welch: yes. mr. terry: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from vermont. the gentleman from vermont has 30 seconds remaining. mr. welch: and i yield the balance of my time to mr. johnson from georgia. the chair: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. johnson: thank you, madam chair. i oppose h.r. 1938 which would accelerate the approval of the keystone coke brothers x.l.
pipeline. no one knows how much air pollution this pipeline will cause or how the pollution will impact public health, and so my amendment would -- is a commonsense one. it would simply request a thorough analysis of the potential health risk before any decision is made. communities surrounding oil refineries that would process these tar sands crude oil are already exposed to dirty air, and approval of this coke brothers keystone x.l. pipeline will only make matters worse. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. johnson: i yield. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: continue to reserve. the chair: the gentleman from vermont has no time remaining. mr. terry: oh, very good. then in closing, i want to lay the -- to sit here and say this hasn't been studied, we have the environmental study impact
study, we have the supplemental. this has been studied. all the agencies are involved, including the pipeline phmsa is involved in this. i'm sure they will make the recommendations based on sound science, and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from vermont. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. does the gentleman from nebraska -- mr. terry: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by offered by the gentleman from vermont will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in
house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mr. rush: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk. -- the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 2 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. rush of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for up to five minutes. mr. rush: during the subcommittee and full committee markup, i offered my amendment to delete a finding that i thought was particularly misleading. finding number 15 states, and i quote, analysis using the environmental protection agency models shows that the keystone
x.l. pipeline will result in no significant change in total united states or global greenhouse gas emissions, end of quote. my amendment was defeated on a party line vote after my colleagues on the other side insisted that a statement was indeed true. well, madam speaker, i took it upon myself to write a letter to the e.p.a. asking the agency to weigh in on the accuracy of this finding, and this was the agency's reply. i quote, e.p.a. has conducted no modeling or provided any models to analyze the likely effect of
the keystone x.l. pipeline on u.s. or global greenhouse gas emissions. the language in the finding is therefore incorrect, end of quote. the essential e.p.a. statement went on to say and i quote again, as detailed in the supplemental draft and environmental impact statement for the keystone x.l. pipeline issued by the department of state, the department of energy -- potential impact of the project. e.p.a. provided no -- provided some data to be included in that effort but e.p.a. models were not used and e.p.a. did not model any projection emissions
effect of the project, end quote. madam speaker, there are some who believe that the majority does not care about facts or truth or science. if these facts or otherwise get in the way of industry moving forward unfettered. well, by voting for my amendment we have an opportunity to set the record straight and prove to the american people that when a statement is shown to be false then members of congress from both sides, democrats or republicans, will put their partisan differences aside and stand on the side of truth. the truth shall set you free.
so i urge all my colleagues to support my corrective amendment in order to correct this misleading statement contained in the bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from nebraska. do yous i -- do you rise in opposition? mr. terry: yes, i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: i'd like to join my friend there standing up for the truth and accuracy. so what i will do is read the supplemental environmental impact study. page 7, the world and d.o.e. energy technologies perspective model analysis results show no significant change in total u.s. refining activity, total crude and product import volumes and cost in global refinery, co-2 and life cycle greenhouse gas emissions, whether keystone x.l.
pipeline is built or not. it's the exact verbiage from the actual department of energy using the e.p.a.'s modeling conclusions. so, we're just using the study, department of energy's stud -- energy study's language. what this amendment does is take out the exact language from independent study by department of energy and supplants it with an inaccurate statement. now, i think where my friend is going and the e.p.a. has recently written a letter saying that what the standard they'd like to see is not crude or heavy crude versus heavy crude because what this study is saying is this oil is still going to be refined, whether it's in kansas, oklahoma, texas or chicago, if it's not being
refined there it will be refined in china, therefore it has the same impact globally, the same life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. the e.p.a. wrote a letter and said, we're changing that standard. we would like you to just compare it to texas sweet crew and they just pulled that out of a hat here just a few months ago so that's what he's saying but it's not part of what the study says. so there's no reason to remove this. this is accurate, it's exactly from the department of energy's study, based on e.p.a.'s own modeling and i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. rush: madam speaker, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from illinois has 1 1/2 minutes remaining and the gentleman from nebraska has 2 1/2 minutes remaining. mr. rush: madam speaker, this is simply an argument over whether or not this house will allow
false information in this bill to move forward even though we have documentation from the very agency in question stating that the information is false. this is the letter. this is the letter. it says, it's a letter dated june 27, it says, analysis, the e.p.a. has conducted no modeling nor provided any models to analyze the effect of the keystone x.l. pipeline on u.s. or global greenhouse gas emissions. the language in the find something therefore incorrect. -- finding is therefore incorrect. how clearer can be it that the e.p.a. states beyond a shadow of a doubt that this particular
passage in this bill is false, it's misleading and if we vote for a piece of legislation, not only is it wrongheaded, it's wrong in its effort. and we vote to pass this legislation, then we are perpetuating a falsehood. madam speaker, this congress stands for -- have higher standards than the movements of the -- that we know is false. we know it's not accurate. the other side knows it's not accurate. but the industry affording them must have it and i say industry must not have it. we should have to stand for the truth and the truth is that the e.p.a. did not conduct any models.
i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: once again, in the entire record that's been submitted from the department of energy to e.p.a. the studies that have been done conclude that in global refineries, co-2 and total greenhouse gas emissions, whether x.l., the keystone x.l. is built or not, there is no additional co-2. no significant co-2. that's the exact language in here, to strike that would strike the truth that's set forth in the studies and supplant it with something that doesn't exist in all of the models and studies that have been provided. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush.
those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not -- mr. rush: madam speaker. with that i ask for a roll call vote. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote. mr. rush: a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois will be postponed. it's now in order to consider amendment number 3 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. eshoo: madam chairman, i rise to offer an amendment. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 3 prohibited in house report 112- 181 offered by ms. eshoo of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentlewoman from california, ms. eshoo, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from california.
ms. eshoo: thank you, madam chairman. it's always good to see you in the chair. pipeline safety is not a subject that we can afford to take lightly. on september 10 of 2010, last year, a natural gas explosion in san bruno, california, just north of my congressional district and congresswoman spire's district, killed -- speier's district, killed eight people, injured dozens of others and destroyed 55 homes. this is from a natural gas explosion. since 1938 congress has attempted to promote natural gas pipeline safety but the horrific explosions like the one in san bruno, california, continue to occur every year someplace in our country. it's a dangerous business under the best of circumstances. to move forward with the tar sands pipeline, which we have little experience regulate -- regulating, without a solid understanding of the safety issues is an enormous and i
think dangerous mistake. we've heard strong, well-informed concerns that pipelines carrying tar sands and the chemicaled by minute may pose greater safety risks than even those pipelines carrying conventional or synthetic crude. on june 16 of this year during an energy and power subcommittee hearing on pipeline safety cynthia quarterman, the administer of the pipeline and has orderous material safety administration, testified that this agency specifically tasked with researching and administering pipeline safety has not analyzed the risks of these new pipelines. but mrs. quarterman replied when asked that the agency would be pleased to make such a review. i think the american people
would be safer if they did. my amendment would require it to complete a comprehensive review of the properties and characteristics of bidemin and the hazardous pipeline regulation before a final presidential permit is issued. i think the study is very, very important for the safety of all americans and it will determine whether current regulations are sufficient to regulate pipelines used for the transportation of tar sands crude oil. this approach i think makes sense because it's far less costly to build pipelines correctly than to try to fix or replace a line that's already built. the explosion that occurred in san bruno, california, and the recent oil spills that have occurred, particularly the spills from transcanada's keystone pipeline, which leaked 21,000 gallons of crude in north
dakota, i want to repeat that, leaked 21,000 gallons of crude in north dakota, are a warning to all of us that we need to get this right. so, let's protect lives, money, property and take the proper precautions now and for these reasons i urge all of my colleagues in the house to support my amendment and i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: thank you. i think the crux of this is that the gentlelady from california's asking for a -- another study and that seems to be kind of the new tactic of how to delay or kill a bill, let's just do
staudy instead of implementing something. but i want to also then talk to the point about the safety of the pipeline that she brings up with the chemical that helps the crude actually flow through the pipeline better. this isn't new, this chemical isn't new to the pipeline has orderous material safety agencies. in fact, heavy crude has been sent through pipelines with this chemical since the 1920's, including out of california. so they have the expertise to deal with this already, they are working on their assessment of the keystone pipeline to assist the state department and department of energy in their recommendation so there's really no need for this type of a study and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from california. has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.
ms. eshoo: thank you, madam chair to. respond to my friend and colleague, mr. terry, with all due respect, i didn't come to the floor today with a tactic. i offered this, i raised this in the committee, we had a very good discussion about it there. it's my understanding that an e.i.f. is being conducted but an e.i.s. on the entire pipeline is very different than what i am raising. and the head of the agency, when she appeared before the committee understanding that there will not been an examination in particular about the tar sands crude oil and bidemin said that her agency would be pleased to undertake
that study. so i'm here today obviously to offer this amendment. i think it's based on good common sense that we examine this before we go ahead with it. and i raise something that is very real, and that is that a handful of miles from where i live, even though it's outside my congressional district where lives were lost, eight people were killed, dozens were injured and 55 homes destroyed. so this is not a tactic. this is not to delay. this is to get this right before the permit is issued. i think the agency can do this on an expedited basis. i'm not seeking to delay and to blow up anything. i'm here relative to public health and public safety. and with that i yield back the balance of my time.
the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i do, too, have great confidence in phmsa to be able to determine whether or not the chemical creates any issues of bitumen. the been around for 91 years with heavy crude. so i just don't think there's a need for additional delays or studies. ms. quarterman said she's undertaking the study and that will be included in her recommendation, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlewoman from california. ms. eshoo: i would request a recorded vote on the amendment, madam chair. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed.
it's now in order to consider amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from the virgin islands rise? mrs. christensen: i rise to introduce an amendment. the chair: clerk. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mrs. christensen of the virgin islands. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, mrs. christensen, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the gentlewoman from the virgin islands is recognized. mrs. christensen: thank you, madam speaker. as i say i rise to introduce an amendment which would simply add a provision to h.r. 1938 to recognize that the keystone x.l. pipeline will make it harder to address global warming. allowing the transport of petroleum to the refineries in the gulf of mexico has serious
environmental and economic ramifications. reports indicate that the production of fuel from tar sands can yield greenhouse gas emissions nearly three times as high as those produced from conventional extraction. while my colleagues and i last congress worked to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, canada has projected that their emissions will grow 25% by 2020 with those from tar sands being the single largest contributor. this is not something we should be working to expedite. h.r. 1938 makes a series of findings related to the keystone pipeline, some of these matters are a matter of opinion and so much is just flatout wrong. all of these findings show one characteristic. they all support the pipeline, and fracts not concluded. in fact, there are a lot of inconvenient facts about the pipeline that the american people should know. tar sands require far more energy to extract and processed than conventional crude oil. the result is that emissions of
using tar sands fuel are approximately -- as high as 37% higher than from our baseline fuel mix. this pipeline would almost double our current use of tar sands fuel. at a time when we're trying to curb carbon emissions, keystone pipeline makes us more reliant on one of the most dirtiest sources of fuel currently available. in short, tar sands oil threatents our air, water -- threatens our air, water, land and increases our greenhouse gas emissions and demand for nart gas. it has no place in the clean energy economy. on page 3, 198 of the state department's supplemental draft environmental impact statement, it is estimated that keystone x.l. pipeline could increase carbon pollution associated with the u.s. by up to 23 million metric tons of co-2 equivalent per year. this is equivalent to the
annual emissions from an extra 4.5 million passenger vehicles. the cdeis further indicates that most of the greenhouse gas emissions will cox from the production of -- will come from the production of crude oil, refining of the crude oil and combustion of the products. transportation of the crude oil to the refinery and transportation of the products to the market also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. this does not include the range of secondary carbon emissions to be considered as well. in a letter to the state department, our very own e.p.a. indicated that the extra greenhouse gas emissions associated with this proposed project may range from 600 million to up to 1.15 billion tons of co-2 over keystone x.l.'s life cycle. it's unfortunate that while the department of state and e.p.a. recognized the huge risks incurred, the proponents of h.r. 1938 simply ignore them while some will tell you that the pipeline will enhance
energy security, the other side of this equation must be considered. now is not the time to increase harmful air emissions and further jeopardize the health and our environment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. mr. terry: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: two points here. i think number one is that the gentlelady's amendment really helps defined what the real issue here is. it isn't necessarily the pipeline or its placement of the pipeline or a gimmickal that's in it. it's actually about whether we're going to continue to use oil, and as we use more oil it gets heavier. i mentioned earlier with the gentleman from illinois' amendment, the e.p.a. is doing this switch where you don't compare a heavy crude or sour to it the same like -- that's
been brought in by venezuela. now, you have to compare it to a different type of sweeter crude or easier to refine crude. the reality here -- and that's the point that's made in the studies itself in the part that she reads from -- the gentlelady read from -- is that we're using a heavier crude. i think that's an unfair comparison. we have to do heavy to heavy to determine if there's going to be an increase in greenhouse gases. there's no rushing or expediting. this has been sitting around for three years. so it's really time to get up and do something. at this time i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from illinois, mr. shimkus. mr. shimkus: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the chair: without objection. mr. shimkus: thank you, madam chairman. listen, this debate is about u.s. energy security, north
american energy and jobs. the original keystone pipeline cost $2 billion. thousands of u.s. jobs. the expansion of the refinery bordering my district and bordering the chairwoman's district is thousands of jobs and an expansion of a refinery. keystone x.l. will help us create thousands of new jobs, expanding the pipeline, expanding new refineries, getting down to the refineries in texas. listen, the canadians are going to build this pipeline in one or two directions. they're either going to go south to help us become north american reliant and secure in energy or they're going to build this pipeline west to put it on tankers and to ship it to china. now, i would ask my colleagues, what's more environmentally safe, secure and sound -- a pipeline or a supertanker? what's better for our country, to have that oil coming to the
united states or to have that oil going to china? i think the answer's clear. we can become north american energy independent. the keystone x.l. pipeline is part of that. i appreciate my colleague. i'd ask my colleagues to vote against the amendment. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. mrs. christensen: thank you, madam speaker. my amendment really talks about the placement that is a problem. while we will be using oil for a long time, it's time for us to begin to go towards a more greener economy and to slow down global warming and do what we can to protect the public health. my amendment is in the direct opposition to the finding. the finding says there's -- the x.l. pipeline will result in no significant change in total u.s. or global greenhouse gas emissions when e.p.a. and the -- also the supplemental e.i.s. for the department of state clearly says range from 600 million to 1.15 billion tons of
co-2, assuming the life cycle that's projected, and also that the range could be equivalent to greenhouse gas emissions from the combustion of fuels from approximately $this is from the state department $ 588,000 to 4.5 million passenger -- 588,000 to 4.5 million passenger vehicles. or energy consumed by approximately 255,000 to $-- 1.9 million homes. the social costs to human health, property damages, flood risk, ecosystem services due to climate change. so even though this has been under discussion for a long time, there are a lot of things that have not been considered, and i -- with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: joirt. -- the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i still rise in
opposition because it doesn't accurate reflect the findings of the environmental impact study. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlewoman from the virgin islands has 15 seconds. mrs. christensen: well, just to say, madam speaker, while we're trying to reduce the emissions, when you look at canada, just primarily because of the tar sands, their emissions are projected to rise by 25%. so i continue to offer my amendment and i ask for the support of my colleagues. i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentlewoman from the virgin islands. the amendment is not agreed to. excuse me. it's now in order to consider
amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: the gentleman from tennessee rises because he has an amendment at the desk. the chair: did the chair call gentleman a gentlewoman? if so the chair apologizes. mr. cohen: i think so but i've been called much worse. the chair: clerk. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from tennessee. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: as the state department and the u.s. public
consider whether the proposed keystone pipeline is in the national interest, it's critical that the most accurate information be made available. that's why i offered an amendment to this legislation that eliminates a rhetorical baseless safety claim and replaces it with a substantiated factual statement. trans canada is part of a campaign to brand the keystone x.l. pipeline as safe and their company as responsible owners. i am sure that b.p. oil said the same thing about deepwater, but that wasn't true. and just because they say it doesn't make it true. it is one thing for a foreign oil company to ploy misleading rhetoric but it's not the place of the house of representatives to endorse it -- these mistruths. it has a brief objective glance of the safety record to say that trans canada's claims do not have the slightest scrutiny. when selling keystone, that's
not keystone x.l., which we're looking at, keystone, another pipeline, to the u.s., trans canada claimed that the pipeline was, quote, state of the art, unquote, and went as dubbing to as, quote, the safest pipeline ever built. well, we're in trouble. after one disaster here of operation, trans canada's rosy claims are not reflective of the reality that exists. in less than 12 months of operation, the so-called safest pipeline ever built has spilled 12 times in the united states, the dirty dozen, and 21 times in canada. following that 1th domestic spill, the department of transportation shut down pipeline operations because keystone was deemed, quote, a threat to life, property and the environment, and since keystone is transcanada's first wholly owned oil pipeline in the united states, transcanada's safety record is off to a pretty bad start. transcanada's misleading safety claim extends far beyond their
simple rhetoric. here are three of the most egregious claims for keystone x.l. number one, that transcanada's claim that if and when the proposed keystone x.l. pipeline has a leak it will shut down the pipeline almost instantly. unfortunately spills on the keystone pipeline have demonstrated that transcanada's theoretical response is far better than their actual response. in may's keystone spill of 21,000 gallons, it took transcanada 44 minutes to shut down the pipeline after the spill. and it would have taken even longer had it not been for a land owner who called in the spill which shot a six-story-high gusher into the air. you'd think it was texas. number two, transcanada suggests there is little risk of a spill on the keystone x.l. pipeline. however the only independent assessment of the worst case spills for keystone x.l. indicate that transcanada has greatly understated the severity and frequency of spills, be a
estimate that is more than 800% -- an estimate that is more than 800% lower than what will likely occur. we have witnessed the damage caused by the 40,000-gallon spill in the yellowstone river. now try to imagine how devastating a 6.95 million, almost seven million gallon spill of more toxic oil would be on the yellowstone river. a spill of this magnitude and devastation is possible if we approve the keystone x.l. number three, transcanada claims that keystone x.l. will be built of thicker steal and operate -- steel and operated at lower than allowed pressures but a major segment of keystone x.l. be made of thinner steel than exxon mobil's failed pipeline and while keystone x.l. would allow -- run at lower pressures, it would run at pressures twice that of silver tip. it will transmit tar stands which is more corrosive than oil.
it reveals a web of exaggerations, understatements and lies that have been carefully woven together to manufacture an image of safety and responsibility. it is critical of the american people have an accurate depiction of the dangers of the proposed pipeline. congress must exercise more scrutiny and not take transcanada's manufactured rhetoric at face value. we cannot afford to let transcanada once again dupe us into permitting an even more dangerous pipeline than keystone was. for as they say and we all know, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. somebody from texas tried to say that once but we know the statement. i urge support for my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee yields back his time. the gentleman from nebraska. mr. terry: i'll reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from tennessee did yield back. mr. terry: oh, he yielded back.
ok, i'm sorry. there's no doubt the facts are that on the keystone but not the keystone x.l. there have been 12 leaks. 12 leaks of as little as five gallons to 400 barrels of the recent one and thorpse determined to be part -- those were determined to be part or caused not by the safety of the pipeline but by valves that were malmanufactured. there was a manufacturing problem that within a 12-hour period they were up and running again, those have all been replaced, that's the type of response that we expect under our pipeline laws. and so i think the issues here are better placed in our discussions of pipeline safety of which both transportation committee and energy and commerce will begin working on soon.
and so i just don't see the need for this type of an amendment or fact finding to be put into this bill. with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska yields back his time. all time having been yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. cohen: i would ask for a roll call vote because -- the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offer by the gentleman from tennessee, mr. cohen, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? mr. murphy: i have an amendment at the desk.
the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 11-181 offered by mr. murphy of -- 112-181 offered by mr. murphy of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment before us today asks the simple question, why should america shoulder new environmental risks to help power the economy of china? many members have come to the floor today to document the considerable ecological and public health threats pothe posed by the development of the transcanada keystone x.l. pipeline. in addition to producing 40% more life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil, the recent exxon pipeline spill in montana's yellowstone river serves as a stark reminder of
the very real risks posed by these kinds of pipeline projects. however, in discounting these facts, the proponents of keystone x.l. exert that without the new pipeline, canada's dirty tar sands oil will be shipped to china and to other overseas markets. this however simply isn't true. without access to a major new shipping terminal and refining hub on the gulf coast, canada's tar sands will remain stranded on the north american continent. indeed, keystone x.l. pipeline is essential -- keystone x.l. is essential to the economic expansion of canadian tar sands because it opens up new trade routes to the east. current pipeline infrastructure carries tar sands oil to the midwest but no further. by 2005 existing markets will no longer be sufficient to absorb this increased tar sands production. so the key stond x.l. pipeline will provide -- keystone x.l. pipeline will provide that new market to china for this oil. indeed earlier this year the
c.e.o. of have alerow energy, one of the companies that has signed up to ship oil through keystone x.l., said this, he said that the future of refining in the united states is in exports. so america is increasingly now the global middleman in world oil exports. our oil exports have doubled in the last five ye yeerings and the question is this, shouldn't we have some say in where our oil goes? with the construction of this new pipeline we're going to be shouldering all of the increased environmental risks that come with its construction to help meet the growing overseas oil demand of our economic competitors. how does that further the energy independence of the united states? so the amendment we're offering today with mr. cohen and mr. welch will merely make it clear that a decision to permit keystone x.l. is a decision to in part help promote north american oil exports to china. whether you like that or don't like that, we should at least admit that that is one of the byproducts of or action today. i'd urge -- of our action today.
i'd urge my colleagues to support this amendment and face the reality of the keystone x.l. pipeline rather than just the rhetoric and with that i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman may not reserve. mr. murphy: i'll yield that the point to mr. cohen of tennessee. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the action of mr. murphy in yielding time. i rise in support of the murphy-cohen-welch amendment. this sheds light from the oil industry's attempt to pressure the u.s. into approving keystone x.l. by threatening to export tar sands to china. mr. murphy's well stated. canada has already said themselves they can't get that oil out of canada without this pipeline. they can't get it to china unless they build the pipeline. they want to build a pipeline through america, over one of our most important aquifers, threatening our environment, our drinking water so that canada can get some oil to possibly go
to china. and canada cannot get it to china without going through the united states. it makes no sense. and the fact is this amendment like the previous amendments are just simply putting the facts, the truth into this particular paper. there's nothing wrong with these facts, nobody disputes the facts. the fact the gentleman agreed in the previous amendment that there have been a dozen leaks of the keystone pipeline. he mentioned that some of them were very small. the average someone 1,000 barrels. so if the keystone pipeline, which was the safest in the world, was not safe, what's wrong with mentioning it in the findings? and the same thing here. what they've said about china is just not true. the only feasible route to export tar sand to china is the keystone x.l. and that's what they're looking to do because it's not going to affect the united states -- effect the united states' use of oil as a commodity that the canadians want to sell and they're not going to give it to us cheaper than they're going to give to anybody else.
they want to make money but they have opposition in their own country as well. we need to look out for the american people and not have some situation where maybe because canada's helping us with oil in the middle east that we're helping them with oil through our midwest. america's midwest is too important to sacrifice to some misguided adventure that canada got into with us in the middle east all because of oil. so i would support the murphy-cohen-welch amendment and yield back my time to mr. murphy. mr. murphy: i'd like to yield whatever time we have remaining to mr. rush of illinois. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. rush: mr. speaker, i stand in support of mr. murphy's amendment and this amendment
would say a misleading finding about the tar sands in canada with information. the only problem with the minority's argument is that canada has no way to send oil to china now. and no realistic prospect of ever sending oil to china, they won't do this any time soon. so i think this is a commonsense amendment and i certainly stand in support of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: i rise in opposition of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. and first of all, the purpose of this pipeline is so that american citizens will have a
reliable source of fuel made in america. that's the whole point of this. and there are companies that are expanding their refineries right now to be able to accept this crude. now, it's been stated that if we don't use it, then this is not going to be used because it's land blocked but nothing could be further from the truth. it's only 800 miles from the point that the oil sands will be used to the vancouver coast where it could be put on and would be put on tankers to be shipped to china. now, embridge is already in the promoting process for a pipeline that will link the fields in northern alberta to a terminal in british colombia -- british columbia. it's 525,000 barrels per day so the statement that it will be
land locked and never used is just simply flat wrong. that is not what the canadians will do. to say that it's going to be sent to our refineries in oklahoma, chicago, texas and louisiana so it can then be refined and put on just a tanker to go south through the panama canal and through just makes no sense because we have the most stringent regulations in refining and on cleaning the -- or a clean process that add as great deal more to the cost of refining -- that adds a great deal more cost to refining so it makes no economic sense to do that. it would be much cheaper to just put a pipeline to the west coast of canada, put it on tankers, it would be much cheaper to do that. at this point i yield two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania. >> i thank the gentleman from nebraska. you know, that line through
canada is less than 800 miles long would add an additional almost 10,000 miles to go through the panama canal to shanghai doesn't make economic sense and let's keep in mind, canada is our neighbor. they are our friend. our most consistent and reliable ally and i trust the way they're going to be working on many things with us. but i also trust the workers who will work on this pipeline. american workers from here in the united states, well trained people who have gone through good training programs as apprentices and journeymen. construction of this pipeline will generate about $20 billion in economic output, perhaps $13 billion in direct work on the pipeline itself. mr. murphy: now some estimates have said that for every $1 billion you spend on infrastructure, it yields about 35,000 jobs. that's some jobs that go for manufacturing, some jobs for actual construction and some jobs for the supports that help those workers as well as the places they will spend money. steam fitters and welders who make $45 to $50 an hour,
operating engineers, laborers who will earn between $23 and $31 an hour. the. this is at a time when we need more jobs. construction of this pipeline with oils from canada is going to make us less dependent on opec. we send $129 billion per year to opec. that is $129 billion in foreign aid that we do not have to send to those countries. $1129 billion to countries that use u.s. dollars against our soldiers and we end up fighting the war on terror. this is what we need to keep in mind. this is a jobs bill, a bill dealing with a friend and a bill that makes a lot of sense and we shouldn't put more delays and restrictions on this because we have to get off of our addiction much opec oil. mr. terry: i urge defeat of this
job-killing amendment. yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. terry: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. rush: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 112-181 offered by mr. rush of illinois.
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. mr. rush: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, today is the day on fast tracking the keystone pipeline by two months. reminds me of a saying that eloquently sums up the fight before this congress. nonsense minus common sense is nonsense. our nation safety for the american people, including the economy and jobs. it is incomprehensible that we are here debating a bill that is
totally and absolutely unnecessary, completely futile and not even worth not one second of congress' time. mr. speaker, this bill will force the administration to issue the presidential permit for the pipeline within 30 days of an environmental impact statement and regardless of whether or not the process has been completed. this arbitrary willie nily time line will reduce the allocated time that the federal agencies will have to determine the
national interests in deciding whether this proposal by almost 2/3 of the time that they need. while also reducing or eliminating the comment period. mr. speaker, the amendment would allow for 120 days after the environmental impact or no later than january 1, 2012 for the president to issue a final decision on the pipeline. this is vital and necessary part of the permitting process. and i also believe that it is important for the various departments to weigh in with a national interest determination,
which this will take care if not eliminate. they have a statement and we will inform that it will be impossible for the responsible agencies to complete their due diligence and reply to the time line of november 1, as this bill would mandate. eventually, just yesterday there was a statement that this bill was, quote, unnecessary since the agency already plans to reach a final decision by the end of the year and having a hearing that this bill will be
-- by the enactment of this bill. mr. speaker, whether you support the pipeline or not, it is extremely important that all the relevant information and impacts so an informed decision can be made. so i urge all of my colleagues to support my amendment which would allow for the time period for the public and the different agencies to weigh in while also mandating that a decision is made within a timely manner. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from illinois reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes.
mr. terry: first, i want to state that this is an infrastructure bill. this is a $13 billion project, $13 billion spent in the united states, employing united states' workers. on the surface, my friend from illinois' amendment seems fairly innocuous, just delaying this decision by 61 days. the point i would like to make, we just had it with the delays. this isn't rushing or expediting, this is only weeks away from a three-year anniversary from the filing of the application, when in comparison to other transcontinental pipelines, that the average is 18 to 24 months. so it's time that we act. the date of november 1 was actually calculated by the time it would take the state
department after they requested another round of town hall meetings to sufficient time to accomplish those, so there's just know reason to bump it back, this date from november 1 to january 1. and i would yield three minutes to the gentleman from illinois. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is rk recognized for three minutes. mr. kinzinger: i can tell you, i'm from illinois and illinois is in a tough environment right now. tough budget, a lot of talk about the budget right now. we have huge unemployment and people who desperately want to go to work. and when i do town hall meetings in places like joel yet, princeton or those -- gentlelady yet or princeton, i get comments
, why can't we become energy independent. that's a great question. when people look at washington, d.c., and they say washington, d.c., is broken, one example of that is the fact we can't get our act together and do what we need to to increase oil that we're not pulling in from the middle east. i mean it's just very basic. how can we do anything in this congress that we can't agree that our partners from the north bring their oil here and come off our dependence on the oil from the middle east and fund the terrorists that we are fighting. when we talk about the keystone pipeline, what does it mean for the united states and for illinois? for starters, it means creating more than 100,000 american jobs. we have been seeing the jobs reports lately, they aren't good. how would you like to add 100,000 american jobs? that's what we are offering.
these billions of barrels of oil from our friends to the north means we need less oil from the middle east and venezuela unless oil from other countries that we can no longer rely on and are not friendly to the united states. what's bad about that? it means $5.2 billion in new property tax revenue for bankrupt states like my own, like illinois. the north american made energy security act expedites a final decision on the keystone pipeline and would allow canadian oil supplies to flow into the u.s. markets and requires the president to issue a final presidential permit decision by november 1, 2011. this bill does not require the president to accept the benefits of the pipeline but to make a long overdue decision on this pipeline. the state department has at their discretion the authority to decide if the u.s. benefits from this.
the fact that someone will benefit from the oil out of canada. if it's not the united states, it will be china unless we take immediate action to expand the keystone pipeline and it will be american businesses, american consumers and those that are unemployed that are desperately seeking for a job in this terrible economy who will suffer the consequences from our inaction. according to the department of energy report, the pipeline extension will essentially eliminate our oil imports from the middle east. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and support the final passage and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush is recognized. mr. rush: may i inquire how much time i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, has 30 seconds and the gentleman from nebraska has 30 seconds. mr. rush: i want my friend from
illinois to know i don't have any trouble to joliet, illinois. i have come down to his district and see the unemployment. i am not standing here signing against jobs, i am siding for jobs. at the same time we fight for jobs, we have to fight that the american people have input into making decisions such as this. mr. speaker, i also believe that at the end of the day, we want to ensure that this pipeline benefits america and not china. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. terry: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush. those in favor say aye.
those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. rush: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois, mr. rush, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from hawaii seek recognition? ms. hanabusa: i have an an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 112-181 offered by ms. hanabusa of hawaii. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the the gentlewoman from from hawaii. ms. hanabusa: i yield myself such time as i may need.
the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. hanabusa: this amendment requires the presidential permit approving the construction and operation of the keystone xl pipeline that it will not issue until such time the secretary of energy in consultation with the phmsa has calculated a worst-case oil-spill scenario for the proposed pipeline and has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the secretary and the phmsa that they have the capability and technology to respond effectively to the worst-case scenario. the reason this amendment is so necessary is because we are talking about a 2,000-mile pipeline from alberta to the gulf coast. it can actually according to the bill itself, it will increase the production and the pipeline will carry 700,000 to 1.290
million barrels a day. this will go over aquifers and what we need to recognize is that the people of this great country after experiencing the bp oil spill expect us to address and recognize that that type of catastrophe may occur and what this amendment does is it gives the people that assurance. i would also like to say, mr. speaker, that part of this amendment, also gives the secretary the opportunity to wave the requirements. if the secretary and -- waive the requirements. if they believe that the applicant has, in fact, completed a worst-case discharge scenario, then they can say that this provision is no longer necessary. . so this is really for the people. it gives the people peace of mind that in fact we have addressed this situation, especially when we're going over
aquifer and many people's lands. 2,000 miles. mr. speaker, with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii reserves her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: i rise in opposition of this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: i appreciate the thoughts of the gentlelady from hawaii. coming from nebraska where it's the sand hills and the sensitive area and the aquifer, i want to make sure that the people in my state have the piece of mind and the confidence that the worst case scenarios have already been modeled out and written into their plans. in fact, that's the whole premise of phmsa. and so the analysis of a worst case scenario spill is already part of the application. it's part of the environmental impact statement and the
supplemental environmental impact statement. furthermore, it's democrat strate its response plan in the event -- it's demonstrated its response plan in the event of a worst case discharge that the pumps will stop in nine minutes and the valves will shut in three minutes. so the worst case scenarios are part of the record so that the entities that have to make the recommendation to the president already have that determination, then they'll use those facts and figures and models to determine what to recommend to the president, then the president can make that recommendation. so i believe that this amendment is really you is purr flewous and unnecessary -- is unnecessary and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska reserves his time. the gentlewoman from hawaii is recognized. ms. hanabusa: mr. speaker, you can tell me how much time i have left? the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii has three minutes. ms. hanabusa: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i understand what the proponent of this measure is
stating, however let us also recognize that this bill in its own requirement says that not later than 30 days after the issuance of the final environmental impact statement the president shall issue an order either granting or denying the presidential permit. we're not here to slow this, we're actually here to assist them if this is really what they want to do. the reason why is this. if you're very familiar with the environmental impact statement process and we are in the comment period right now that you know that after the comment period is done that what will then happen is that you will then be able to file challenges to the e.i.s. itself. what this does is it then creates the opportunity to say in a challenge to an e.i.s., the sufficiency of which if it's challenged and the fact that it did not properly address the worst case answer air yo, that there is a prose -- case scenario, that there is a process in the law itself that
would permit them to say, hey, we can look at the worst case scenario and i believe that any kind of construction project such as this, it would be the worst case scenario argument that could bring it to a complete halt. so given that, mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment because it really will give the people the peace of mind and if this is a project worthy of going forward that it does assist in that process. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman from hawaii yields back her time. the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, is recognized. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. and i just dish want to give a degree of -- i want to give a degree of confidence that this scenario has already been set forth. this is the environmental study, page 3-99, maximum spill volume, it's already been models out, it's already been determined and just to provide further confidence, even the e.p.a. that wrote a letter a few months ago
did not say anything about the maximum spills and whether the responses were appropriate or not. most of theirs was on greenhouse gases. so this issue is pretty well settled. the facts are there for those who will make the recommendations and i yield back and request defeat of this amendment. the chair: both sides yield back their time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. terry: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hanabusa, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 11-181. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- 112-181. for what purpose does the
gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 9 printed offered by mr. johnson of georgia. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, and a member owes posed will each control five minutes. the -- opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker, for allowing me to speak today on h.r. 1938, the north american energy security act of 2011. and my amendment to this legislation. i oppose h.r. 1938 which would accelerate the approval of the keystone coke brothers x.l. pipeline. no one knows how much air pollution this pipeline will cause or how the pollution will impact the public health. my amendment, which has been endorsed by the national resources defense council and the sierra club is common sense.
i'm simply requesting a thorough analysis of the potential health risks that should be completed before any decision is made to begin construction. even though the state department has submitted two environmental impact statements on the keystone coke brothers x.l. pipeline, the environmental protection agency has found that neither statement included a satisfactory evaluation of the increased air pollution that would come as a result of this pipeline's operation. communities surrounding the oil refineries that would be along the transportation route for these tar sands crude are already exposed to dirty air. approval of the coke brothers keystone x.l. pipeline will only
make it worse. the raw tar sands crude is more toxic and acidic than other types of crude. raw tar sands crude produces significantly more harmful pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions than conventional crude oil due to the complex refining process it must go through before it reaches gas pumps. in china. as this type of crude has only been exported to the united states from canada for a relatively short period of time there has not been a thorough study on how its transport would affect air pollution in our nation. it's troubling that the construction of the keystone coke brothers x.l. pipeline which would transport 900,000 barrels of this crude oil daily should take place before such a
study is ever done. we have a responsibility to the american people to properly assess what risk the construction of this pipeline may pose to our health. it would be irresponsible for us to sweep these concerns under the rug just to rush this project to the finish line. valid questions have been raised about health risks associated -- associated with the increased air pollution this pipeline will produce and these questions deserve legitimate answers. for this reason i am requesting that a study be conducted to measure the health impacts of raw tar sands crude pollution in communities surrounding the refineries where the keystone coke x.l. pipeline would operate. and if you share my commitment to safeguarding americans' health, i ask that you approve my amendment and allow for such
a study to be done before we make any decision on the pipeline's construction and with that, mr. speaker, i will reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from georgia reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: thank you. and let me assure the gentleman from georgia that part of the environmental impact study based on the e.p.a. modeling inherently includes the impact of health around the communities. so i am confident that the president or the department of energy and department of the state will have the necessary health impact data to make the proper recommendation to the president and the president will then be able to rely on those or review the data himself before issuing it. but to require an additional
study on top of the ones that have already been done, it appears to me to just simply be an act of trying to slow it down or the process down and let me remind the chairman that we are on the third year anniversary of this particular application. these applications are resolved within 18 to 24 months. the owner, transcanadian pipeline, transcanadian is a canadian company, they've agreed to all of the recommendations that have come forth from all of the draft, the environmental impact studies and supplemental. so i really do not want additional studies layered on additional studies layered on additional studies to slow this down. this is a $13 billion
construction project not funded by the government but will employ at least 20,000 union contractors and 100,000 to 200,000 employees to help build the refineries, to work the refineries in the united states. this is the jobs bill. this is getting people back to work. this is an infrastructure bill. let's get this decision done, the data's available, it can be done by november 1, i urge the defeat of this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska reserves his time. the gentleman from georgia is recognized. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. speaker. the gentleman from nebraska is incorrect in terms of the
environmental protection agency having conducted a study of the increased air pollution that would come as a result of this pipeline's operation. now, the state department has submitted two environmental impact statements on the keystone x.l. koch brothers pipeline but the environmental protection agency has found that neither statement included a satisfactory evaluation of the increased air pollution that would come as a result of this pipeline's operation. and so i wanted to correct the record on that and last but not least i want to -- this body to know that it's the health of americans that is most important here as opposed to making money
for a oil company. and with that, mr. speaker, i'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman from georgia yields back his time. the gentleman from nebraska is recognized. mr. terry: thank you, mr. chairman. and i hold up united states department of state report here, and cooperating agencies in the development of the report is the u.s. environmental protection agency, e.p.a. the actual study was done by the department of energy using the e.p.a.'s standards and modeling. . i think that may be where the confusion is entering here. i didn't say the e.p.a. did the study. i said department of energy using e.p.a.'s modeling and standards did it. but the e.p.a. was a partner in this and had made their
recommendations on it. so again what we are requesting is a redundant study being done and i urge the defeat of this amendment. i yield back. the chair: members are advised not to traffic the well. both sides having yielded back, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia, mr. johnson, will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i have an
amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 112-181 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 370, the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i'm glad i'm able to rise and speak about legislation that involves one of our closest allies canada. and because this is a relationship with canada and because it is an international issue, i'm assured that in the process, we will have significant oversight that includes the environmental protection agency, the secretaries of defense, commerce, transportation, energy, homeland security and the attorney general will have to comment on this application before the conclusion and the
final decision. that is good news. but i also think it's important as we discuss what the potential of this relationship with and the opportunity for oil coming from a friendly neighbor is to be reminded that many of us have said over and over again that we must cease to rely upon foreign oil. in fact, in a senate hearing, when egypt was beginning to in essence explode, members said watch egypt and we must lessen our dependence on foreign oil. obviously, egypt is not one of our major sources of energy but they were binge on to see the ripple effect in the middle east, what has been called the arab spring. for many of us, we realize that it is a long, long winter as our friends in the middle east seek peace. so this is an important
statement about our commitment to creating jobs, but also, it's an important statement on relieving or ceasing the dependence of the united states on foreign oil. let me just take one state's economy and realize what would happen with this particular effort. $2.3 billion investment in texas economy creating more than 50,000 jobs in the houston area, providing 48 million in state and local taxes, increased the gross state product by $1. billion. but i don't choose to be selfish in my amendment and my amendment is a sense of congress that says that it is the sense of congress that the united states must decrease its dependence on oil from countries which are hostile to the united states. canada has been a long-standing trading partner and increased access to their energy resources will help create jobs in the
united states. and if i was to add to that, continue the strong relationship between the united states and canada. in addition, i think it's important to note that the president of the united states has indicated that we should increase or decrease our reliance on foreign oil. in this instance, i believe that we are making an effort toward that. do i believe we should in essence cross our environmental t's? absolutely. i ask my colleague to support my amendment and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise nab rise -- the gentleman from from nebraska rise? mr. terry: we think that her amendment reflects the thoughts of the american people we agree with it. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields
back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from texas is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i thank the gentleman very much for his agreement -- how much time do i have left? the chair: two minutes. ms. jackson lee: can we all get along? i mentioned the different agencies that will have oversight. i have listened to concerns about safety, security and health. i frankly believe we can do it all. we can increase jobs here, up to 300,000 and we can pay attention to the issues of the environment, safety and security. i think it will be important for trans-canada to address the question of spills, important for there to be discussions about protecting against toxic chemicals, important to disarm farmers, when i say that, disarm
them about spills. i know about pipelines. there are state laws that regulate the building of pipelines. putting forward more safety procedures and standards, being concerned about the public health and making sure that we address the concerns of all americans is an important step, but i think we have a bottom line here. the importance of lessening our dependence on foreign oil and as well to be able to ensure that jobs are created here in america. that's what we are september to congress to do, to create these jobs and stand alongside our neighbors and make sure they have a safe environment while they work and produce an economy that is known to america, greatest economy in the world. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment
is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-181. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich rise? mr. kucinich: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 112-181, offered by mr. kucinich of ohio. the chair: the gentleman from ohio, mr. kucinich and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: americans are turning to their federal government for relief from high gas prices. approval of the keystone x.l. pipeline will lead to the opposite result and will actually raise gas prices principally in the midwest. in fact, some of the states that
will suffer the worst gas price increases are the same ones that will have to bear the environmental burden of this pipeline. it's not just my conclusion, but the conclusion of trans-canada. this is the conclusion of international energy consultant, the company that trans-canada hired to evaluate its keystone x.l. pipeline and this is the conclusion of oil market economist. this is why they want to build this pipeline. my amendment simply requires the secretary of energy to analyze the effect of the proposed pipeline on increased gas prices for american consumers. and to determine if this pipeline is just an effort to manipulate the market for crude oil in the united states. the proposed pipeline would
carry up to 900,000 barrels per day of tar sands oil from alberta, canada, over 2,000 miles to gas refineries on the gulf coast. proponents claim it would bring down oil prices. trans-canada's permit application to the canadian government for the pipeline included documents and testimony which said canadian oil companies could use the pipeline to increase america's fuel bill by up to $4 billion per year by limiting the supply of canadian crude to midwest refineries and rerouting it to gulf coast refineries. this benefit to canadian oil companies was used by trans-canada to argue that approval of the pipeline was in canada's interest. but this information was conveniently hidden when trans-canada applied for the u.s. presidential permit from the state department.
this information comes from a report by international energy consultant, the company that trans-canada hired to evaluate its keystone x.l. pipeline. section 343 of their report, they concluded there was an oversupply of crude oil in the midwest that resulted in lower prices for canadian crude oil and that the keystone x.l. pipeline would remove this oversupply and raise crude oil prices in the market. and section 345 of their report, they recite that, quote, keystone has reviewed the assessment and agrees with its conclusions. through manipulation of u.s. oil markets, the keystone x.l. pipeline will increase u.s. gas prices by 10 cents to 20 cents per gallon across the united states according to an oil market economist. the greatest price increase, twice as much by one estimate,
will occur in 15 states, including my state of ohio, illinois, indiana, iowa, kansas, kentucky, michigan, minnesota, missouri, nebraska, north dakota, south dakota, tennessee and wisconsin. it estimated to increase prices $6.55 per barrel of crude oil in the midwest and $3 per barrel across the u.s. this will gouge consumers forcing them to hand over $3.9 billion to foreign oil companies every year. this boom may benefit canadian oil share holders. it will only further devastate the american people and our economy and farmers who are struggling financially and can't afford a gas price hike. americans want low gas prices. permitting the keystone pipeline will increase prices at the pump and making americans pay more
and more for every commodity they purchase. i urge my colleagues to protect americans from being further gouged by foreign oil companies and to support my amendment. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from ohio reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? mr. terry: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. terry: i strongly oppose this amendment. this is a poison pill. especially the way this amendment is worded. now, the reality here is when this infrastructure of the pipeline is completed, two american u.s. refineries that are expanding to be able to accept this additional crude from canada, we will have a
reliable supply of at least 700,000 barrels per day. not relying on the middle east, as the gentlelady from texas just spoke about wherein the arab spring, provided great uncertainty of which then maybe speculators took advantage of. but the reality here for the u.s. markets is that we won't have to deal with that uncertainty if we continue to take steps like the keystone x.l. pipeline. once again, a reliable, reliable resource of 700,000 to 1.3 million barrels per day will only deflate prices at the